How terrible was it--that the will of the people didn't reign? It's actually part of the design of most governments. Representative government is intended to do something other than govern by just majority sentiment. Instead, representatives are chosen who are, hopefully, more thoughtful, wise, and informed than the average voter. Though voters aren't required to vote for someone better than average, the competition makes it likely that the winners will be better.
So we entrust the power into the hands of our chosen representatives, and sometimes they don't do what we want them to. That may happen because what the people want is foolish or impractical or downright impossible. For example, Americans want very good government services in the form of healthcare, a strong military, good schools, good roads, etc. But we also want low taxes.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist or Nobel prizewinner to realize that those goals are in direct conflict. So our representatives have to sort out the conflict within what We the People want. The results may be disappointing, but they may also the best possible outcome given all the constraints. More likely, the results are somewhat less than optimal due to compromises/bribes made to get enough votes, but better than a solution straight out of a Gallup poll.
So next time I see some internet jerk complaining about how Congress isn't doing the will of the people, I'll remind the jerk about how stupid the will of the people can be.
Extra. This column was inspired by this post, which was a reminder of how Americans love the benefits and deride the costs, whether it's Medicare or ACA. It's not a new observation, but timely.