[1] This idea has been discussed by various thinkers, including John Stuart Mill in On Liberty'[2] and Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America.
[3][4] A tyranny of the majority can ensue when democracy is distorted either by an excess of centralization[5] or when the people abandon a wider perspective to "rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence".
[1][7] in the context of a nation, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body such as a bill of rights or supermajority clause have been used to counter the problem.
A separation of powers (for example legislative and executive majority actions subject to review by the judiciary) may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government.
[8] In social choice, a tyranny-of-the-majority scenario can be formally defined as a situation where the candidate or decision preferred by a majority is greatly inferior (hence "tyranny") to the socially optimal candidate or decision according to some measure of excellence such as total utilitarianism or the egalitarian rule.
The origin of the term "tyranny of the majority" is commonly attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, who used it in his book Democracy in America.
[10] While the specific phrase "tyranny of the majority" is frequently attributed to various Founding Fathers of the United States, only John Adams is known to have used it, arguing against government by a single unicameral elected body.
Herbert Spencer, in "The Right to Ignore the State" (1851), pointed the problem with the following example:[17] Suppose, for the sake of argument, that, struck by some Malthusian panic, a legislature duly representing public opinion were to enact that all children born during the next ten years should be drowned.
This "localism" strategy was presented as a mechanism to circumvent Calhoun's perceived tyranny of the majority in the United States.
Calhoun's contemporary doctrine was presented as one of limitation within American democracy to prevent traditional tyranny, whether actual or imagined.
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.
[19]So when I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to whatever power, whether called people or king, democracy or aristocracy, whether exercised in a monarchy or a republic, I say: the seed of tyranny is there and I try to go and live under other laws.
If you exceed those limits, then you necessarily violate the democratic process.Regarding recent American politics (specifically initiatives), Donovan et al. argue that: One of the original concerns about direct democracy is the potential it has to allow a majority of voters to trample the rights of minorities.
… Recent scholarly research shows that the initiative process is sometimes prone to produce laws that disadvantage relatively powerless minorities … State and local ballot initiatives have been used to undo policies – such as school desegregation, protections against job and housing discrimination, and affirmative action – that minorities have secured from legislatures.
Rahim Baizidi uses the concept of "democratic suppression" to analyze the tyranny of the majority in economic classes.
[24] Anti-federalists of public choice theory point out that vote trading can protect minority interests from majorities in representative democratic bodies such as legislatures.
[citation needed] They continue that direct democracy, such as statewide propositions on ballots, does not offer such protections.