This is all deflection and playing with words. Posing yourself as superior to "normies" (gross channer-ism, btw) is the most textbook definition of elitism. You know this, and you surely recognize it in liberals often. You know those blue state fuckers who gloat when some natural disaster rips through part of a red state, and obviously there is going to be structural systemic negligence, so many people die preventable deaths and the shitlibs all go "that's what you get for being redneck hicks who just want to murder Mexicans." Obviously there is sadism there that I'm not asserting in your case, but it's just the most unambiguous expression of the snide attitude that shitlibs take toward massive swaths of the population who they don't understand and just lump together as dumb Trump voters (never mind that even in red states Trump typically only had a plurality of the adult population vote for him).

When you talk about "normies" (i.e. the derisive name channers use for normal people) and the "tyranny of the majority" (despite this not being a majority view, something you are unable to contend with), you are doing literally, bar-for-bar the same thing, posing yourself as superior to the disgusting masses of society who you do not understand and crassly misrepresent. Try reading past the second section of the redsails article for more on this.

Normal people are far to the left of the political establishment on many issues, and even the overwhelming majority of the political establishment does not condone repealing the 19th Amendment (a notable exception seemingly being the Secretary of State, but again that's an exception). There is a domestic bias to their progressivism, making them basically socdems, but we're talking about domestic policy here.

Truthfully, I don't understand why this is even a contentious point. "Tyranny of the majority" is literally the historical rallying cry of liberal elitism, and the way that children in America have been taught to hate democracy for centuries.

And again, it's not the majority, not a plurality, not even a strong minority view, but you've somehow convinced yourself of its popularity with literally no evidence except, I must assume, myopic anecdotes or internet brainrot. It's literally such a consensus issue that it's hard to find polling data on the question. Don't get me wrong, I fully expect the currently very fringe "repeal the 19th" crowd to grow over the next decade, thanks partly to Trump bringing in freaks like Hegseth, but it is very unlikely that they will ever be the majority of the population in part because women are the majority of the population. There are definitely some "tradwives" who advocate against women, but in so far as adults discuss this issue, it's mostly men who support it, and even among men it is still a tiny fringe belief, especially if you exclude minors.

Also, this isn't important to the point at hand, but:

westerners are smug bourgeois

You're misappropriating Lenin here (though your grammar makes it needlessly difficult to interpret, you probably should have said "bourgeoisie"). To say that a class has bourgeois features is not the same as saying it simply is a member of the bourgeoisie, and doing so flattens class politics within the imperial core, which is a bad idea if you want to do anything other than feel superiority and disgust. It would be more accurate to use it as an adjective, as Lenin does, but also I think it's just a crude term compared to "labor aristocrat," which avoids misimplications about property relations.

There are one or two extremely tedious grammatical arguments that you can make in response to this, but I'm leaving them unaddressed here because they're a waste of time.