It would be a very short discussion. If it were 'genuinely democratic' you'd have to allow (what I presume is) the other side to trot out the fact that the low housing density that people have chosen in the US prevents Euro-style "high-quality" mass transit. Ironically, the few cases of good transit that can be found in the US _encourages_ lower density by allowing, for example, people to live in Ronkonkoma and work in Manhattan.
> There's no guarantee the masses would choose to trade in
> their cars after a robust debate of the facts and the
> options, but it's certain they won't without one...
What facts and options are those? What are there about 14 people in the US who would trade in their cars? I have no idea what you're talking about, but even people who claim to live carless lives (I bet you'll get Doug to agree he's one) are, in the end, pro-car. Doug has said that he loves to drive, and when he gets to, he goes at it with gusto. And I bet he hopped a cab cross-town within the last week. I drive very little myself, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
You can have your 'genuinely democratic' discussion right here; you'll get a disproportional look at the anti-car crowd. And you'll still lose by a landslide.
Good luck with the rest of the US!
/jordan