If you're gonna fail, you may as well do it in a way that leaves people scratching their heads as to how.
That depends. It's debateable whether a democracy can exist with or without universal suffrage. You are describing ancient Athens, though it technically wasn't a democracy because only a small percentage of Athenians were allowed to vote. No slaves, no foreigners, no women. Any free-born Athenian could theoretically speak and vote in any assembly but the nature of the assembly favored city folk over rural folk. City dwellers did not have to walk as far whereas farmers may have to walk a few days. During planting and harvest time, most farmers couldn't afford to leave their farms for a few days. When they had very large votes, they usually tried to have them on dates where the rural folk could make it relatively easily, but it didn't always work. Assuming you have universal suffrage or you come to conclusion that a democracy doesn't technically need universal suffrage then there are two kinds of democracy. Representative democracy or direct democracy. The latter is only really seen if you have a town meeting system where everyone talks and everyone votes on EVERYTHING. In this case, yes, skilled orators usually beats logical arguments. If you are in Ancient Athens, be sure to keep your oration succinct if its a cloudy day. If the sky thunders while you are speaking you are automatically wrong. That's Zeus overriding your idea by the way. In most cases direct democracy doesn't work that well. Imagine if everyone in your town voted what percentage of impurities is tolerable in steel used for making automobiles. 90% of the stuff leaders make is about esoteric stuff the average person isn't well informed on or has a direct stake in. That's why most modern democracies are representative democracies where we elect officials to take care of these things for us. But of course this opens the door for special interest groups. Most sugar Americans eat is not grown in the United States. The United States has a import tariff sugar. Most Americans don't know or care. They don't buy enough sugar to care. Now some people work at candy companies or bakeries and these literally buy tons of sugar. They are REALLY against these sugar tariffs. Corn syrup is a common substitute for sugar. Most American soda is made with corn syrup not sugar. IF the sugar tariffs went away, sugar would become slightly cheaper and the major companies would switch. Ergo, America's corn farmers REALLY like the sugar tariffs. They want the sugar tariffs higher. But it's more complicated than that. There are more special interest groups involved. The American Dental Association and American Diabetics Associations also support high sugar tariffs. The closest major producer of sugar cane to the United States is Cuba. A lot of Cuban Americans and anti-communists are anti-Castro. Sugar tariffs mean less money for Castro. They are pro-sugar tariff, Small business advocates may be against the sugar tariffs because of they impact restaurants and bakeries. They are anti-sugar tariff. United States corn farmers have a lot of related industries. People who ship and process US corn probably support sugar tariffs. Corn can be used for other things than syrup. People who have cornfed livestock probably are against sugar tariffs because that it would make it cheaper to feed their livestock. You get the idea, there are tons of interested parties but most Americans don't know or care. Sugar tariffs cost the average American $10-$20 a year in terms of higher prices for consumer goods. Too small for most to notice. I'm probably missing a few things, but sugar tariffs was what a political science professor used as an example for how something seemingly simple can draw out lots of special interest groups. Now imagine how much worse this is for coal mining which is a much much larger industry than sugar. Coal mining is the lifeblood of many regional economies. There are related industry for transporting and processing coal. It's used for making steel and energy. Coal produces pollution but this pollution is variable based on what type of coal it is and how it's used. Coal is competing with oil, natural gas, nuclear power, solar power, and wind power. Coal is viewed as a strategic resource. Coal is burned and mined all over the world, so anything the United States does with it's coal is going to have an impact on what other countries do with theirs and visa versa.