The problem that Matthew Green is calling out subtextually is that democracy is likely to disappoint nerds on this issue: a random voter in the country 10 years from now may very well not share your priors about this issue.
consider the implications of a government where setting up an encrypted network is a serious offense, or where detecting encrypted communications is routine. the average voter doesn't matter. if they are willing to go that far it's a tyranny and the average voter doesn't matter anyway because they spy on everyone and have LLM's profile everyone (in that context even if voting still happens it doesn't matter, they will nudge the voters however they wish due to the information asymmetry).
It doesn't need to be a serious offense. The current playbook works fine. Anything the Constitution prevents you from doing, have a private company do it for you. In this case you lean on, pay, or give preference to private companies to install back doors. Have the SC rule that you can't sell devices with certain encryption guarantees anywhere on the planet because planetwide commerce affects interstate commerce. Things like that.
