[kennysoona]

> given correct conditions you will manage to have decision making which is collectively beneficial and acceptable.

Only if the population is sufficiently educated and good intentioned, and even then it's still the will of the majority, but because it's not a negative result it isn't considered a tyranny.

[mdp2021]

The crucial importance of education was mentioned in the original post, and "good intention" is implied as an effect of proper education. "Tiranny" in the intented context ("tiranny of the majority") is close to the actual meaning of the term, of "unfair power" (that of the usurper: illegitimate, hence dubious).

But the point is, a proper decision system boosts optimality at most "under inspiration" from the preferences of the voters, but not bound to that. Those voters may not even be a "majority"; there are many implementations (already forms of "ranked preferences") in which the idea of "majority" largely loses its meaning, etc.

[kennysoona]

> "Tiranny" in the intented context ("tiranny of the majority") is close to the actual meaning of the term, of "unfair power" (that of the usurper: illegitimate, hence dubious).

I mean it closer to 'unjust rule'. For example, Jim Crow laws were an example of tyranny of the majority, and that power was not sized illegitimately. If the majority really wanted to restore something like that, there isn't any system in place that would stop them, not ranked choice voting, nothing - we have to rely on good education so they wouldn't want to do that, but we would need a clean slate to do that as well.

To many people are poorly educated, and raise their kids to be skeptical of education. That's such an immense problem that I'm not sure the US can really recover.

If we were starting from a clean slate, where everyone was well educated, it should work in theory, but even so I think we can have a much better system to any form of democracy we have now.

[mdp2021]

> tyranny

The term "tyrant" historically was used for rulers who were not part of the recognized dynasty: usurpers. The term shifted to "arbitrary power" because the tyrant ruled without grounds founding an authority. We can say "tyranny of the majority" as it can be valued as unfair that anything (majorities included) have power without full substantial authority.

> If the majority really wanted ... there isn't any system in place that would stop them

That is false, because there can be systems that do not attribute powers to majorities. (In fact, the rule of minorities is quite extensive in history, and not all voting systems give powers to majorities - or, as already expressed, the idea of "majority" loses a direct sense in some even simple voting systems.)

[kennysoona]

> That is false, because there can be systems that do not attribute powers to majorities.

Which democratic systems of government prevent a majority from voting in new representatives to change the law as they see fit?

[mdp2021]

Iterative elections of electors (e.g. Venice); ranked voting (e.g. Australia); ostracism (e.g. Athens); group voting (e.g. Rome); weighed voting (e.g. corporations); disapproval voting (e.g. Soviet Union)...

Majorities may be used technically but it is not the majority of the population that determines the policy (which remains indirect anyway).

[kennysoona]

> Majorities may be used technically but it is not the majority of the population that determines the policy (which remains indirect anyway).

They can still always overrule it though. That's inescapable in a democracy.