As much as I oppose democracy in principle, I am open to finding ways of improving it as an alternative to discarding it. In the United States of America, voting was once limited to the domain of male land-owners. While modern feminist types would be inclined to paint this as tyrannical patriarchy, it;s much more likely that a male land-owner would confer with his wife and any mature family members before deciding his household's vote.
The concept of a land-owner having a vote while a homeless, or at least landless, person does not is interesting. Arguably a person who owns and cares for a physical piece of the country might have more of a stake in that country's elections than a person who has not the competence or ambition to obtain and possess land. A homeowner might have more to lose and more right to a say in what direction a country takes than a ne'er-do-well or failure might; and a better head on their shoulders for making choices that would benefit the future of their country.
So... how about a democracy where only major contributors to the country's wellbeing, such as farmers, have a right to vote? Doctors, ranchers, foresters, fishermen... people who provide the food and building supplies and other necessary resources that keep a country alive and ticking. A farmer who employs a hundred labourers might confer with those labourers before deciding how to vote. "Trickle-down democracy"; only a select few have the right to vote; but those few would do well to consider the needs of the non-voters when deciding who to support in the elections.