There are risks in every means of organization. With democracy, the risk is that a massive wave of ignorance could overcome society and a nefarious power could gain control until the next election. Even worse in cases like pre WWII Germany where Hitler was elected, made himself permanent, and it took the world to get him out.
But, the only alternative to majority rule is minority rule, but the risk of tyranny goes up, not down.
It's been said that the most effective government is a benevolent dictator a la the Catholic Church. Effective, but very, very risky as benevolence is merely a special interest.
If by that you mean Democracy cannot prevent someone who wishes to destroy the country from getting elected ... Especially as a matter of ignorance and lack of foresight ... Then I would have to agree with you there.
We have an excellent example of just such a scenario in the White House right now ... Not to suggest that the current President would be the only applicable answer.
That is also why the Founding Fathers established a Representative Republic over a straight Democracy ... And warned of the dangers of Majority Rule even in that case.
You can refer to the way they set forth systems that require a super majority over a simple 51-49 split ... But that is still hard to manage when the population is split along those lines.
Again ...
Do you think that an issue is the responsibility of the government as the result of being a popular general interest?
Do you think that truth is determined by the number of people that agree with it?
Additional Questions:
Do you think that this section of the USMB forums is intended to be an exercise in debate?
Do you think that continuing to spout rhetoric with no forthright attempts to engage in debate over topics you have already mentioned ... Or the stalwart desire to answer clarification questions ... Is consistent with a productive debate platform?
.