the alternative to that is not a democracy, it’s a dictatorship of sorts, which is not accountable to anybody. Generally, these don’t go well, but it does seem people would find this preferable as the ‘wrong’ people keep getting in.
Yes.
Unfortunately people who "find this preferable" are currently in office in the US, and have spent the last four years using their power of office to stop "wrong" people getting in.
Or longer, in the case of Mitch McConnell who blocked the appointment of a Dem Supreme Court nominee "because it's wrong to appoint one in a President's last year", and has just allowed the appointment of Supreme Court nominee in a Republican president's last days.
Entryists are of course keen to preach the virtues of democracy to their opponents while their own guys drive a troika and three through it.
For those of us who actually support democracy rather than see it as merely a convenient, temporary means to an end, this is a challenge without a clear answer. Democracies can be driven to fail, as we have seen in the C20th.
Once a regime is in power which is prepared to break important things to keep that power, response to that regime through the rules is doomed to failure (because the regime breaks the rules); and a response to that regime outwith the rules means the response itself breaks the fabric of the democracy further.
The members of the dictatorship create a perfect cleft stick. It's great for them, and a nightmare for the country.