Is democracy the best system?

I think democracy has hugely fault, in democratic countries (USA / Europe / ...), where elections are not rigged (I think), the results show that the people are opposed around 50% vs. 50 % (or at best 60% vs 40%, I am French and I know that the presidential elections end up with scores of this type generally between socialist and "UMP").
The problem is that the "losers" are not necessarily the worst, I think everyone does not vote for the best choice, but for his personal interest, and because of that, I do not think the people are best placed to choose their leaders. I'm not for a corrupt, autocratic, or worse system ... But I think an objective system (less subjective anyway) with a technocratic election (but not corrupted by economists seeking to benefit) would be better than democracy ... (Recently the people of Saudi Arabia appears to be favorable for the killing of a free thinker (considered guilty of blasphemy by opposing Islam) ... by the way, the elections "democratic" in Tunisia, ... have not really pushed the best political tendency in power ...) For me, technocracy with a scientistic ideology (use the exact sciences to the humanities, would lead to objective solutions), but respecting ethics requiring the State to act up in the interest of the people, would be a much better system that what we are currently offering ... (Because I doubt that the individual vote of a citizen to be issued in the interest of all rather than the personal interest of this same citizen).

Because I'm French, I can not really judge the American voting system which I believe is different from mine, and the ability of the American people to make good decision, but I was wondering what you would think of my opinion (which is probably non-existent in France although I've found two or three guys on the internet who shared the same).

>>8-9
You've failed to answer my question in >>6 , and you trot out some random quote from Dawkins, which basically amounts to "the universe has some kind of order to it and I find satisfaction in that". Not the same as having a personal god. Also, nice cherry-picking quotes from Einstein, where if you actually clicked my link posted in >>6 you would see:
Albert Einstein, German born American threoretical physicist (1879-1955)."It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press.
You're grasping at straws at something that isn't ever there. So, once again I ask, what of the people listed in the link I posted in >>6? (I predict that you'll still ignore my question)