"[A democracy] is forced to drastically change course when a large portion of the population is unhappy." I concur. But the odds of that course-correct being t

"[A democracy] is forced to drastically change course when a large portion of the population is unhappy." I concur. But the odds of that course-correct being the right one must relate to the prevalence of the truth in the population, right? Was Churchill's election a grand triumph of democracy? I can see why you might think so. They elected what seems to have been the right man for the job, despite his flaws. Was he really? Was that lying drunk really the only guy who could have pulled it off? Or did Britain elect a terrible person and just got lucky that his failings didn't muck everything up?