In more ways than one. Lets say one wolf is kind of smart and realizes it's a multi-round game, and that after they eat the sheep there won't anything else for them to eat except each other. What does that wolf do then? And what if it occurs to him that he can't be sure that the other wolf hasn't realized this too?
What about a system where wolves aren't allowed to eat sheep, and everybody just chooses for themselves what to have for dinner (so long as that choice doesn't involve coercing someone else)?
Nobody "allows" wolves to eat. They do it unless they are stopped. As such, such system exists except in fantasy-lands where neither politics nor economics exist.
Good analogy. A wolf majority results in sheep being eaten with or without democracy because the wolves are more powerful. A sheep majority can save the sheep from the wolves only in a democratic system where the wolves respect majority rule.
"Others remind us that the United States is a democratic republic, not a direct democracy, and that the Constitution was designed to modulate the extremes of majority rule. Majorities sometimes want things — like bans on books, or crackdowns on minorities — that they should not be given.
This is true. It is also true that a thoughtful process of democratic deliberation and compromise can yield better policy outcomes than merely following the majority’s will. But these considerations hardly describe our current situation. The invocation of constitutional principle has become an increasingly lame and embarrassing excuse. The framers of the Constitution, having experienced a popular revolution, were hardly recommending that the will of the majority be ignored. The Constitution sought to fine-tune majoritarian democracy, not to silence it."
