You are misdefining "democracy" as "suffrage only." Of course, if you do this, you will see democracy as a bad thing. In fact, democracy is self-correcting, because it is "all brain-network based limits on government power." Primarily, it is "suffrage"+"jury trials." Jury trials are a form of "sortition," which, by its construction, has a statistical tendency to limit government power.
Now, it's true that if the suffrage is restricted to a narrow class of people, or does not allow proper access to the ballot, we will not have "legitimate democracy" or "proper democracy," and won't achieve good results. The same is true if we don't have "legitimate jury trials" or "proper jury trials," because judges filter who sits on the jury (juries must be purely random).
The answer isn't to rebel against proper democracy, nor is it to rebel against the instantiation of properly-designed components of democracy. The answer is to correct the corrupted components of democracy, to eliminate the "corrupted components" of democracy, and replace them with uncorrupted components. (I don't mean replace the corrupt individuals in democracy, I mean abolish the procedural changes that have eliminated democracy. Here are a few: restrictions on who can access the ballot, restrictions on the time window allowed for petition circulation, too-high-to-comply signature requirements, voir dire, improper jury instruction, bar-licensing of lawyers, etc.)
The answer is to work very hard to restore the proper components of democracy, and to have the wisdom and knowledge that informs you that you are not wasting your time (most people who begin this process lack the money to see it through).
And this is where Americans really fall down and fail. They never had proper History, Economics, Law, or Philosophy, so they have no idea if they're wasting their time when they become politically-involved. Still worse, they often are wasting their time when they become politically involved, because they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING. (This describes the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party.)
But this doesn't mean democracy itself is really the straw man anarchists make it out to be.
It means "anarchists" or decentralists need to learn what constitutes proper democracy.
This requires them to understand the relative merits of jury trials, and of free and open elections.
Beyond that, here area few more adaptive democratic limits on government power: widespread skilled private gun ownership, freedom of speech and of the press combined with civil disobedience, freedom of assembly. In each prior case, networks of brains are providing a lot of what Dan referred to as "The Wisdom of Crowds." (This is a great book by James Surowiecki, who unfortunately fails to apply all the insights in his book to his everyday political views.)
A good website to help familiarize onself with this concept is: http://www.democracydefined.org
Moreover: Many people would say that WIKIpedia is a decentralized model. It's probably almost as good as one can get, although it does favor authoritarian control by "educated elites" when there's a controversy. If it did not, the flat-Earth type people (highly motivated by delusion) would be able to shape the content of the knowledge base. Consensus =/= truth, nodes must retain independence to exploit "the wisdom of crowds."
(Of course, the optimal way is to allow dissent, and record everything, delete nothing, and value rank everything, so patterns emerge. This is slightly different with systems of governance, which determine how force must be used, than with systems of coordination, which simply determine how a job will be implemented.)