> Or are you trying to imply that California's elections are not free and fair

Among other issues California is extensively gerrymandered, and recently voted to temporary disable the anti-gerrymandering constutional provisions to allow it to make changes that would have been unlawful under the state constitution and become one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation for congressional districts (in terms of ratio of party seats vs party registrations).

While departing from California deregistering from both health insurance and my drivers licensed triggered voter registration even though I'd specifically indicated that I was no longer a California resident. Vote by mail makes it easy for someone to drive a neighborhood and steal ballots, makes it trivial family members to coerce votes out of each other or simply take their family members votes.

The freeness and fairness of California elections are not difficult to take issue with.

> There are historical reasons, going back to the 1960s, why the Democratic party is perceived as the lesser of two evils when it comes to civil liberties

The democratic party of today is a very different one that the party of the 1960s or even 1990s and is much less well aligned with civil liberties than it used to be, lesser or not depends on what aspects you prioritize but whichever way you slice it today it's a party which is generally opposed to civil liberties including the most critical of them: freedom of expression.

> Often we have to live with the fact that bad policies are popular; that's democracy in action.

The US was constructed as a democratic republic specifically to avoid the tyrany of majority rule.

> If voters want to hold politicians accountable, they can vote out the incumbent.

Or-- more effectively-- move to a state with more competent policies.