Political Concepts
Majority Rule and Minority Rights
Also Known As Tyranny of the Majority
Citation Formats
General Reference
APA Style
BibTeX
Majority rule holds that, in a collective decision, the option preferred by more than half of the voters should prevail, and it remains the most widely used rule for binary decisions in legislatures and referendums around the world. Left unchecked, the same principle carries a well-documented danger: a majority that can outvote a minority on every question can use that power to repress the minority rather than merely outvote it, a risk James Madison named directly in Federalist No. 10 in 1787, warning that a government where a majority forms a faction can sacrifice the rights of other citizens to its own interest. Alexis de Tocqueville gave the danger its lasting name after touring the United States in the 1830s, writing in Democracy in America that a minority struck by injustice has nowhere to appeal, since public opinion itself is the majority; John Stuart Mill carried the same warning into On Liberty in 1859. The remedy constitutional democracies have converged on is not to abandon majority rule but to bound it: entrenched bills of rights, judicial review, the separation of powers and supermajority requirements for certain decisions all place some questions beyond what any ordinary majority can decide on its own.
Facts
Origin YearSourced to the subject's own account Founding ContextSourced to the subject's own accountThe tension was named directly by James Madison in Federalist No. 10 in 1787 and given its lasting label, tyranny of the majority, by Alexis de Tocqueville after his 1830s tour of the United States, with John Stuart Mill restating the same warning in On Liberty in 1859. 1 Learn More
Nowhere to Appeal
This article records tradition as it has been passed down and reported. Its sources are not yet part of the atlas's verified catalogue.
James Madison saw the danger before the United States Constitution was even ratified. In Federalist No. 10, published in 1787, he warned that a popular government makes it possible for a majority, once it forms a faction, to sacrifice the rights of other citizens to its own convenience or interest, and that guarding against this was one of the central problems any republic had to solve. Alexis de Tocqueville watched the young republic in practice four decades later and found the warning had teeth. Touring the United States in the 1830s for Democracy in America, he wrote that a minority struck by injustice has nowhere to appeal, because public opinion itself is the majority. A losing side cannot go over the majority's head to some higher authority, because in a democracy the majority is the highest authority there is. John Stuart Mill carried the same argument into On Liberty in 1859, extending it beyond formal government to the quieter tyranny of social opinion enforcing conformity without ever passing a law. Three writers, working across a century and two countries, converged on the same conclusion: counting votes correctly is not the same as protecting everyone the vote affects.
Bounding the Vote
This article records tradition as it has been passed down and reported. Its sources are not yet part of the atlas's verified catalogue.
No constitutional democracy has solved the tension between majority rule and minority rights by picking one over the other. Instead, each has built countermajoritarian institutions, mechanisms designed specifically to survive a majority that disagrees with them. An entrenched bill of rights takes certain questions off the ordinary legislative table entirely, so that no simple vote, however lopsided, can strip a right it protects. Judicial review backs that entrenchment with an institution insulated from electoral pressure, a court whose members do not have to win the next election to keep ruling against a popular law. The separation of powers adds a structural obstacle of its own, since a faction that wins one branch of government still has to contend with the other two. And supermajority requirements, entrenched clauses that require a bigger than simple majority vote to change them, deliberately make some decisions harder to reach than ordinary majority rule would allow, trading efficiency for protection. None of these mechanisms eliminates majority rule; each one simply declares certain ground off limits to it, converting Madison and Tocqueville's warning from a hope into an institutional fact.
Cross-Tradition Connections
Associated With
Populism, Ideologies Populism's appeal to a single, undivided will of the people bears directly on the older tension between majority rule and the institutional and constitutional constraints meant to protect minorities and dissent from it.
This source names United States directly: "its lasting name after touring the United States in the 1830s, writing in Democracy in America that a minority struck by injustice has nowhere to appeal, since public opinion itself is the majority..."
Held Differently
Influenced By
Sources
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
Choose a year to see this entry's facts and connections as the atlas records them at that moment: what it held then, what it held instead, and what it had not yet adopted. Choose Present for the current record.