Yes. Any thinking person should be against democracy in the sense of "any time we can get one vote over 50% for something we should pass the something".

This is why the US government was set up with various undemocratic features. This is why there are things like constitutions that require supermajorities to modify.

Protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority is one of the main purposes of good governmenance.

Any thinking person recognizes that in the function "votes(issue) > X%" X isn't fixed to 50. I think people should get a say in proportion to how much it affects them and having X be 100% is a perfectly sane and optimal democratic decision process.

Having X be 100% means nothing ever gets decided outside of very very small groups. See http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-... for some actual data on what people do when presented with polls.

Yeah, thats why Trump won with minority of votes. Just as you like. And i like it too!

The US isn't even a democracy so it doesn't really apply, does it? He'd not have won in a democracy.

Democracy screws folks over very easily.

Please don't make assumptions about what I like.

There's a difference between democracy and ochlocracy ("mob rule").

It's democracy (with a small d) when I agree with it, ochlocracy when I don't?

No, this is a rather cynical thing to say.

In a free society, the rule of the people is only one of the pillars of freedom. Other pillars include the rule of law, certain inalienable rights, etc. Without these, the rule of the people descend into majoritianism or ochlocracy.

The textbook example of ochlocracy is the French Revolution between the Insurrection of 10 August 1792 and the Thermidorian Reaction.

Is the practical mechanism of ochlocracy that it's a democracy with sore winners?