That's a very muddled explanation of the concepts you're referencing.
Direct democracy (i.e. "elections everywhere for everything") is democratic.
The "tyranny of the majority" is a problem of top-down (i.e. hierarchical) organizational structures. Making these structures less democratic doesn't eliminate the tyranny, it just removes the "of the majority" part. The concept regained popularity in the past century thanks to Ayn Rand because of the libertarian idea that individual excellence is held back by the mediocracy of the masses (based on the discredited Great Man narrative of history). "Western thinkers" implies a consensus and persistence that is not there.
The antidote to tyranny is bottom-up (i.e. anarchic) organizing with consent-based decision making. There are still edge case but many of them can be resolved with axioms like the right to self-defense (e.g. a rapist might not consent to being prevented from raping you but your right not to be raped trumps their right to rape you).
It's worth keeping in mind that while a state can claim to attempt to resolve the contradiction of preventing the "tyranny of the majority" while maintaining "democratic rule" the state is inherently tyrannical (i.e. you can't consent to being its subject) and its power over its subjects is only limited by limitations it sets for itself. Absolute democracy would require abolition of the state whereas absolute tyranny would require abolition of the "democratic rule" it uses to justify itself. A state always requires a ruling class, be it a demographic majority, a majority of capital, an aristocracy or a dynasty.
In other words: yes, ideally, all humans affected by a decision should be asked to consent to that decision (which is distinct from supporting it, if you're unfamiliar with this nuance - think of it as "support or abstain").