[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.

[mdp2021]

How?

[kennysoona]

Referendum or voting in their representatives. As an example, assume 80% want to introduce racial segregation in each of the UK, Australia, the US and Canada. What measures would stop them?

[mdp2021]

For example, the potential election of candidates within a subset that escapes that 80%, as enabled by systems similar to those listed, which have exactly the purpose of approximating optimal choice.