It's fairly obvious that much of what the more sociopathic corporations do today will be illegal in the future, but changes in social opinions tend to predate changes in the law by quite some time. For the obvious extreme there - slavery was completely legal. Society began to believe that such a thing was no longer fit for society, and consequently acting against it, long before it was outlawed.
Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
It is funny to say this as if every other modern democracy hasn't solved the specific problem that you have given. The issue isn't democracy, it is the American democracy (or republic if you want to be pedantic).
Specifically, the combination of our expansive freedom of speech protections (which make campaign financing restrictions near impossible) and first past the post voting system make it easy for corporations and the rich to shape the government however they want.
People broadly agree that they dont like the status quo. They dont agree on what would be better. You cant have change without direction and detail.
The problem with your judgement is that it presumes that law is a limit rather than weapon, that it protects rather than attacks, and that the law can interpret and enforce itself. This is a form of privilege because you grew up under conditions where those were mostly true because those in power generally followed the law, so you've never had to question many of your base assumptions about what law is, how it is enforced, or what legitimacy/illegitimacy means. Decisions made have mostly been decisions you can tolerate even if you disagree. You've probably never taken the time to understand America's founding philosophy, which states there is truth that supersedes law, specifically that rights are even more fundamental than law and completely supersede it. You owe yourself a reading of the declaration of independence.
You likely haven't been on the receiving end of blatantly unjust law or "law" enforcement nor do you likely identify with those who have been on the receiving end. You've probably never had to bribe a police officer, something that happens on this planet. You probably haven't experienced law enforcers robbing you of your dignity with the force of courts behind them. You've probably never been subject to law that says you are someone else's property.
Unfortunately for your argument, law can be used to consolidate power to update the law. You can update the law so that only you are able to update the law. When the system of legitimacy for the use of force becomes a tool for power consolidation, "consensus" becomes irrelevant. Consent becomes irrelevant. This is in many ways communicated by OP's managed democracy. What happens when you disagree with management? What does it mean for democracy to be managed. It obviously is because politicians ask for money, not time, not votes, but money. That implies that those with money can influence election results loosely proportional to their money.
You should really read about political philosophy, specifically the "state of nature" which even conservative NYT columnist David Brooks has said we are in. Generally when people say that it means that we are effectively lawless and subject only to systems of power. There is no law to follow because it is arbitrary and unpredictable or everything is criminalized to the point where everyone is guilty allowing enforcement to punish who they choose while technically enforcing the law.
How do you get people who have consolidated systems of power to the negotiating table? How should Ukraine get Russia to the negotiating table? Russia is claiming it is Ukraine's government and therefore Ukrainians are "protected" by Russian law. Gazans are "protected" by Israeli law too. China claims that it's laws "protect" Hong Kong citizens and Taiwanese. Their militaries are technically acting as police if you accept their framing.
Multiple second in commands of the US military have said trump is trying to divide and conquer America. Think about that. Think about what it means for a president to divide the country. It means that they see themselves as president of only half of the people. What does that mean for the other half, do they actually have a government? Are they protected by law?
This country was founded on the philosophy of John Locke, and it's not clear you've read it or understand it, because it doesn't say shoot whoever you disagree with (although that is something that happens in the state of nature), but it also doesn't rely on magical thinking about "building consensus to update the law" which is something that makes sense to think about under a constitutional democratic government, but doesn't make any sense in a monarchy or government aspiring to have a "unitary executive."
