Is it bad for democracy when people oppose the peaceful transfer of power to the winning candidate win elections?

If you give the obvious answer to this question, good luck getting a sinecure at the Brookings Institution!

You recognize the argument that “democracy means nothing more than people being able to cast a ballot with at least two nominal choices” from when Felix Frankfurter made one of the most transparently idiotic arguments in the history of the ignominious history of the United States Reports when discussing a Tennessee electoral map that gave residents in some rural districts ten times the representation as the urban one in which Charles Baker lived:

What, then, is this question of legislative apportionment? Appellants invoke the right to vote and to have their votes counted But they are permitted to vote, and their votes are counted. They go to the polls, they cast their ballots, they send their representatives to the state councils. Their complaint is simply that the representatives are not sufficiently numerous or powerful — in short, that Tennessee has adopted a basis of representation with which they are dissatisfied. Talk of “debasement” or “dilution” is circular talk.

Democracy is when everybody is allowed to cast a ballot, and then the governing party wins regardless of what a majority of voters prefer. This is obvious! Similarly, an election being won by a candidate willing to peacefully surrender power if she loses is no different than one who won’t. This is why everything about American democracy is just perfect.