The tyranny of the majority Andrew P. Napolitano, "Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or three thousand tyrants one mile away?" — Rev. Mather Blyes, 1706-1788 "Does it really matter if the instrument curtailing liberty is a monarch or a popularly elected legislature? This conundrum, along with the witty version of it put to a Boston crowd in 1775 by the little-known colonial-era preacher with the famous uncle — Cotton Mather — addresses the age-old question of whether liberty can long survive in a democracy." https://www.yahoo.com/news/tyranny-majority-napolitano-073912826.html
The majority, when truly given a right to decide, does a good job of making the right choice. If I show you a picture of a rhinoceros and ask you to tell me its weight, you will likely miss by hundreds, even thousands of pounds. But if I ask 2,000 people the same question, the median answer will likely be spot-on. Tyranny comes from being ruled by a minority, not the majority.
That is why we have a written Bill of Rights and an independent judiciary. Courts do unpopular things.
What Napolitano is saying: "In a democracy, faithless to constitutional guarantees, the majority will take whatever it wants from the minority — including its liberty and property. Thomas Jefferson warned that when the federal treasury becomes a federal trough, and the people recognize it as such, they would only send to Washington politicians — faithless to the Constitution— who promise to bring home the most cash. No liberty-minded thinker I know of seriously argues today in favor of a hereditary monarchy, but many of us are fearful of an out-of-control democracy, which is what we have in America today. I say "democracy" because there remain in our federal structure a few safeguards against runaway federal tyranny, such as the equal state representation in the Senate, the Electoral College, the state control of federal elections, and life-tenured federal judges and justices...."
Any of the three coequal branches of American government can become too powerful. The last fifty years or so of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence should give any thinking citizen pause regardless of where he might stand on the issues. The Courts are practically limited only by their own discretion since cutting their budget or impeachment are cumbersome bludgeons. But the Executive has acted at times as if it were accountable to no one and Congress has also acted, or refused to act, in defiance of the other branches. Checks and balances do work but rather slowly sometimes.
