Now when I looked at the Wikipedia article most relevant, I came up with:Quality of representation, or who gets what degree of representation, are not criteria for that definition, or any other I've seen, for democracy. Indeed, your description explicitly rejects certain types of democracy, e.g. direct democracy.
(Also, if you want the winners to effectively represent the whole rather than the majority, I'd expect you to support Borda or similar; it may be said that Borda is to Condorcet as median is to mean.)
Agreed, though I believe you meant plurality, which isn't even quite what we have. But the definition of 'better' for an electoral system is not inherent in the word democracy, nor is it even well agreed-on.

It's simple enough, to be sure; but while the alleged complexity of other voting systems is an obstacle in changing government elections, I think it's no problem for us.
I don't see that it's much more democratic, or that the differences boil down to "more democratic"; I think what we should be after are fair (which all systems under consideration are), transparent, and safe to game*, and appropriate to the type of election.
Myself, I prefer range voting; but I don't see that any of these is appropriate for a group of at-large seats like this. (Actually, if we had one less candidate, it would be a single-seat elimination! ) For my part, though, I haven't done as much reading on the multi-seat election styles; I've a strong revulsion for the party-based systems, but am undecided between cumulative and single-transferable-vote. Still, the single-nontransferable-vote scheme used here isn't that bad, IMHO; it's better than the plurality-at-large system used for local elections in my state. (At this point, it really doesn't matter, because there are no obvious parties, but it's better to avoid that in principle.)

Not impressive; their claims regarding the states' rights argument for the electoral college are weak, they promote government intervention in primaries, and they make no discussion (that I saw) of the strongest other contender, range voting.

You see, there's plenty of room for argument here, and claiming that one solution is the best on such virtues as "most democratic" aren't particularly persuasive; a discussion on this would be better served by discussing concrete advantages and disadvantages.


*By safe, I mean that since we cannot eliminate tactical voting and strategic nomination, AKA gaming the system (Gibbard-Satterthwaite), we should assume it, and not choose a system like IRV which is 'twitchy' to changes, and hard to game effectively. It should be robust so that voters using a reasonably good estimate of candidates' chances will give a nearly 'fair' winner, rather than a grossly distorted one.