I do not seek a moral state, I seek a functional and pragmatic one. The idea of a philosopher-king, an enlightened despot, is a myth, dreamed up by Plato as a deus ex machina to impose the solutions to the very real problems of his philosophy.
The argument against majoritarian rule is usually the one that you state, that it would descend into a tyranny of the majority. However, isn't that the point for things such as the Bill of Rights? Isn't that why most Enlightenment governments had constitutions that were restrictive, not of the power of the people, but the power of the state? Isn't that also why the concept of the social contract was developed, so as all coercive action was undertaken with the collective consent of the coerced?
You must seek other moral absolutes if you cannot see the effectiveness of this arrangement, the idea of collegiality of all citizens, individual rights and collective responsibilities. Do I find this arrangement more moral than others? Absolutely not. Do I find it more effective? Yes.
Now, if you want to paint me into the corner of utilitarianism being a moral absolute, feel free. However, understand that this is not coming from philosophical speculation, but pragmatic observation. The inability of many to distinguish the two is a great failing of modern philosophy, in my estimation.