Now, I hate to invoke this, but... Hitler was democratically elected.
And, to be fair, he did completely follow through on his pre-election promises. He might be the only democratically elected leader to not waver from the plan he laid out before he got elected to power.
That still doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Edit: I don't mean "the sheeple will elect whoever has better PR"; I mean that under specific social and economic conditions electing Hitler starts to seem like a good idea to normal, rational individuals. Same as with taking away privacy.
Except he wasn't, at least not in the usual sense of a party winning the majority of votes in an election. NSDAP was insignificant in the parliament, and Hitler became the chancellor through backdoor deals with industrial tycoons. His coming to power is great example of how to subvert parliamentary process (and in fact how it's regulary subverted only without the catastrophic consequences that it had in Germany's case) in a legal way.
He didn't waver from the plan, that's true, but the thing is, no significant number of people ever voted for the plan either.
And, to be fair, he did completely follow through on his pre-election promises. He might be the only democratically elected leader to not waver from the plan he laid out before he got elected to power.
That still doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Edit: I don't mean "the sheeple will elect whoever has better PR"; I mean that under specific social and economic conditions electing Hitler starts to seem like a good idea to normal, rational individuals. Same as with taking away privacy.