What's wrong with being deliberative anyway?

I'm beginning to wonder if I should just stop reading Yglesias. He's still on his Senate kick, this time quoting Steven Hill from the Financial Times:

He also observes that not only is it ridiculous that 41 senators can block action, but the GOP 40 only represents about a third of the population!

To which I can only reply: Barack Obama only got about 53% of the popular vote when he was elected President, yet he controls a much larger percentage of the national agenda. About 70 million people voted for Obama, which seems like enough for a mandate until you remember that about 62 million people voted for someone other than Obama.

Only about 135,000 people voted for Nancy Pelosi in 2008! How's that for disproportionate influence on the national legislative agenda?

I fully recognize that elections have consequences. Someone should tell Yglesias that an inability to secure a filibuster proof majority in Congress also has consequences.