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).

>>6
For example, a noted atheist, Professor Dawkins, in the first chapter of The God Delusion describes himself as "a deeply religious non-believer." He calls his belief system "Einsteinian religion," and waxes poetical as follows:
Let me sum up Einsteinian religion in one more quotation from Einstein himself: "To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious."

He calls his belief system "Einsteinian religion
Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family and had a lifelong respect for his Jewish heritage. Around the time Einstein was eleven years old he went through an intense religious phase, during which he followed Jewish religious precepts in detail, including abstaining from eating pork. He composed several songs in honor of God. Einstein's Jewish background and upbringing were significant to him, and his Jewish identity was strong, increasingly so as he grew older. Einstein was opposed to atheism. The simple appellation "agnostic" may not be entirely accurate, given his many expressions of belief in a Spinozan concept of Deity. It is accurate enough to call his religious affiliation "Jewish," with the understanding of the variety encompassed by such a label. Einstein had a positive attitude toward religion. He wrote of his belief in a noble "cosmic religious feeling" that enables scientists to advance human knowledge. One of Einstein's most famous quotes on the subject of science and religion is: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in 'Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.' This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: 'I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.' Einstein's famous epithet on the 'uncertainty principle' was 'God does not play dice.'"