What Protects the Rights and Fairness to the Minority in a Political System Where the Majority Rules?
928799
Those who have conscious fight for the few. Heard no child left behind, how about continuing with no person left behind.
265853
To get protection and equality.
515472
It's not always fair, but it is what makes democracy work because people can retain the faith that they are making a difference in their communtiy and the kind of punishment people recieve.
898161
1. Freedom of religion - a person has the right to choose his religion and not to join a religion.\n\n2. Freedom of the press - the people has the right to air their grievances through an independent media.
490677
There is Liberal Deomcracies like the US, UK and most of europe, where people can vote and the government allowed private properties and business and does not interfere too much in the economy. Communism like China and Russia in the past, this is where the government owns everything and people have limited political rights. There is also fascism like Germany and Italy in the Second World War, this is a chaotic system where the government rigidly controls the social structure of the country.\n\nIf I were you I'd look up Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism on wikipedia or answers.com. Or even better get a book from the library.
812498
Representative democracy is just elected officials making the laws and decisions for the majority.  Direct democracy is not feasible because of the large numbers of people.  Even in a smaller community, you would have thousands of people who would want to speak about each and every thing that came up.  \n\nIn government, there is a thing called "The Iron Law of Oligarchy," which means no matter how much you try to maintain direct democracy, eventually there comes a need for representaties to speak for the majority, instead of individuals speaking for themselves.
174327
Money.  Plain and simple.  Other people with money then choose who they think will best protect their investments of money and power.  It's all a system of the elite to keep the "others" and the "have-nots" oppressed.\n\nFR
1176181
Do religions do this? Many do, yes. It's a product of our political system, which is based on might-makes-right majority rule. If there are a majority of people who believe a certain way, they get to impose their beliefs on everyone else. \n\nThe constitutional protections only apply where religious bias can be proven. Especially given the rational basis standard of review for most laws (any rationally related means to accomplish any legitimate government purpose, with all presumptions favoring the government). As long as the government can make any colorable claim that a law is serving a secular purpose, it passes rational basis. So the majority only has to provide some non-religious justification and they get enforcement of their religious and moral beliefs in a broad range of areas.\n\nShould they? Absolutely not. But as long as we live in a majority-rule system, the only thing stopping the majority from imposing their beliefs is self-restraint. And sadly, too many people have forgotten that the goals of religions are personal growth, not enforcement of those beliefs onto the population at large.
1171797
All authority or power is with the people in a Sovereign State.The people exercise this power through the Legislature which make the laws, the Executive which implement the laws and the Judiciary i.e. the courts which ensure that the Executive or the Legislature do not get derailed from their tracks. Simple: isn't it?
1158786
Presumably because people can vote for their representatives, though not for president, school board members, local dog catcher and the like. However, the US is not a democracy in theory or in practice because in a democracy, there is only a majority rule, while in a republic of laws, there are legitimate and protected minorities. The US, however, does seem to be verging on a democracy given its one-party system of government, the increasing fanaticism of governmental supporters, and the growing hatred for minorities of all kinds.
193506
Pass laws that protect the people.  Serve as the check and balance of the judiciary and the executive branches of government.
1155931
The constitution gives states the right to govern elections, and as all things at the state level, laws regarding elections are passed by the state legislature. The laws are enforced by the Division of Elections of the Department of State.
45087
People want their rights.
212054
What you call the "authoritarian tyranny of the majority" in all actuality is simple boundaries, and boundaries prevent chaos and the complete destruction of society.\n\nFor example: You say "why should I have to watch what I say!" to that someone else may very well say "why should I not be allows to take things I really like that are not mine" or someone else may say "why should I not be allowed to take another persons life". From your stand point of no tyranny and no majority- All of the above should be acceptable.\nAfter all it is not fair for anyone to expect to be allowed to do/say anything they want, while censoring someone else. Right?\n\nThe majority is the majority because they believe the same way about a specific topic. I would venture a guess that you on some issues would be very much in the majority but on other issues in the minority. We all are. So while you and I may not agree with every law, every rule and every other persons opinion, in order to make a civil society function there has to be some sort of  boundaries.\n\nDo you honestly believe that you could move to or create a society that the majority did not rule? In the U.S. If you can gather enough people that have the same opinion as yourself you can change whatever laws/rules you wish. Or if you choose you can move to another country, or another sate, or another city that better suits you. Even if you cold start you own society, after a length of time with no leadership and no boundaries , someone living in your utopia will have a disagreement with someone else on some issue. How will that issue be resolved with out leadership? Either the first person's opinion will be forced onto the second or the second persons imposed on the first. Either way before you know it a boundary (rule/law) is created. Then your "NON-authoritarian tyranny of the majority" society has become the very thing you opposed in the first place.\n\nAs long as your in a society that has the right to choose, the benefits of having a majority (that has the right to choose) far outweigh the ramifications of one that does not. Too often people would rather impose their own minority views on a civil society instead of putting the effort in to creating their own society which will suit their needs.\nIn the U.S. no one is forced to live by the majority, they can move at anytime. Oh that's right they would rather make the majority conform to their less popular views and still reap the benefits of what that majority has accomplished than start form ground zero and build a place that has the view they believe in.\n\nLastly - go look up "tyranny". As I am not certain where you live I can not speak to your situation. Here in the U.S. "tyranny" certainly does not apply. Our officials are elected and hold an office for a limited period of time to prevent that exact situation. While you or others may not agree ( I don't all the time) we are FAR from tyranny. Just ask some of the folks in Cuba or the like they are living in tyranny.
810059
Rights of the people.
715757
In the democratic form of goverment that the U.S. currently has, that is correct.\n\nDemocracy in the U.S. does not mean "rule by the majority."  In a democracy there are certain fundamental human rights that are protected.  Among these rights is the right to freely practice an individual's chosen religion, any religion, without government interference AND without establishing an official state religion over any other religion.
588306
There are various opinions on what constitutes a democracy, but in general, it is the ability of the people to have free and fair elections and for there to be a peaceful transition from one person/regime/political party to another. The people need to also have a real choice in the elections, having only two candidates who are selected by the party in power is not a legitimate choice.