The real "cradle of democracy" of course was Athens, Greece. That's where it was invented. The judgment of educated Greeks about their democracy was not very positive. Alcibiades said, "Democracy is acknowledged folly." Plato's philosophy is largely about what a bad system democracy is. The best period of the Athenian democracy was under the reign of Pericles, when Athens was a de facto dictatorship and a democracy in name only. Even under the best circumstances democracy tends to be something other than the rule of the people -- the rule of the rich, or of otherwise influential individuals.
Democracy presupposes that there is such a thing as the will of the people, which in turn presupposes that there is just one people participating in the elections, or at least one clearly dominant people, whose dominance is not in question. In the USA now there are several peoples -- the Whites, the Blacks, the Hispanics, and and artificial groups like the Gays -- and these factions are at odds with each other. There is no such thing as the will of the people in the USA, because it is not one people.
Elements of this situation, especially the adversarial attitude of non-White minorities toward Whites, came about because Jews wanted it and orchestrated it (e.g. the Black-Jewish alliance), but not to be overlooked is the role of greedy capitalists seeking cheap labor. Rush Limbaugh complained recently that many Republicans do not regard illegal immigration as a problem but as an opportunity. Unquestionably such greedy opportunists have contributed enormously to our troubles.
Because the process always leaves one faction or another deeply dissatisfied, there are accusations that the process itself is corrupt, and these accusations are becoming more and more consequential. There were accusations in 1960 that John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon through electoral corruption but there was not much consequence because the differences between Nixon and Kennedy were not radical. The future of the country did not seem to hinge on whether Kennedy or Nixon was elected. At the time of the "hanging chads" controversy in 2000, the difference between the two candidates, Al Gore and George W. Bush, was still not enormous. There was grumbling about whether Bush had been properly elected but his right to the presidency was not seriously challenged. Today it is generally recognized that the future of the country, and which faction will hold the power and use it against the others, is at stake, and because of that any hint of corruption in the process, or any excuse at all, is grasped as a weapon to invalidate or otherwise negate the process.
With this loss of faith in the process also comes real electoral corruption, as in a couple of the Republican primaries in 2012 where it seems that Ron Paul, a challenger to the bipartisan support of Zionist wars, may have been cheated out of some delegates. When people already do not have faith in the process, corruption becomes business as usual. In that case, why preserve such a system? This system of government in the USA is doomed.
One way or another, dictatorship is in the USA's future.