Is America Still a Majority-Rule Democracy? 

The Paradox of American Democracy 

Student debt weighs down millions of Americans every day. In 2023, the Biden administration unveiled a plan to forgive billions in student loans, a policy that promised relief for more than 40 million borrowers. It was popular, too: a Navigator Research poll in 2024 found that 59 percent of Americans supported canceling some or all of that debt. But the program never happened. The Supreme Court struck it down before it could take effect. 

That disconnect raises a deeper question: if a majority of the public supports a policy, why doesn’t it become law? In a democracy, isn’t the majority's will supposed to be decisive? 

America’s system is unusual because it often places unelected institutions, judges, agencies, and bureaucrats between voters and the policies they want. These “counter-majoritarian” checks were designed to protect rights and prevent rash decisions. But they can also frustrate majority rule. At what point does this balance tip? Where is the line between protecting democracy and hollowing it out? The U.S. has moved past balance, and unelected institutions now too often hollow out majority rule.” 

Founders and Fear of the Mob 

In 1787, the Constitutional Convention met to address the failures of the Articles of Confederation and design a stronger central government. Madison, Hamilton, and the other framers deliberately built brakes against majority rule. At first, this seems counterintuitive: they wanted a republic run by the people who had just thrown off a monarchy. Yet to them, it was necessary. 

The tyranny of the majority was just as frightening as the tyranny of a king. Madison argued in Federalist No. 10 that factions, organized groups pursuing their own interests, were inevitable in a free society. If one faction commanded a majority, it could use sheer numbers to trample property owners, minorities, or any unpopular group. The framers’ answer was to scatter power: separation of powers, a bicameral legislature, and checks that could override popular will. 

The judiciary is one such check. Federal judges are appointed for life, never elected by the people. Even at the state level, many judges are appointed by governors or legislatures, not chosen directly by voters. The Senate is another example: every state, no matter its population, sends two senators to Washington. This means Wyoming’s half a million residents have the same Senate power as California’s nearly 40 million. The result is a system where a relatively small minority of Americans can block policies supported by large national majorities. 

Courts: The Unelected Lawmakers 

Before leaving office, President John Adams and the Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, creating new courts and judgeships. Adams rushed to fill these new seats with Federalist judges in what became known as the “Midnight Judges” appointments. One of these appointees, William Marbury, was named a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia.  

When Thomas Jefferson took office, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury’s commission. Marbury sued directly in the Supreme Court, asking for a writ of mandamus to compel delivery. The Court then faced three questions: Did Marbury have a right to his commission? If so, did the law provide a remedy? And could the Supreme Court issue that remedy? 

Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous Court, answered yes to the first two questions. Marbury’s appointment was valid once signed and sealed, and the law provides a remedy when rights are violated. But on the third question, the Court said no. The Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the Court to issue writs of mandamus, expanded its original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution allowed. By striking down that provision as unconstitutional, the Court established the principle of judicial review. 

Courts were no longer the simple arbiters of disputes; they became the shapers of national policy. Previously, they applied the existing law to individual cases, but now they had the power to strike down laws that they deemed unconstitutional. This shifted courts from simply “applying” law to defining what the law itself means. In standard law systems, decisions create binding precedent. When a court rules, it doesn’t just resolve one case; it sets a rule for all future similar cases. That’s inherently a policymaking function. 

Before 1954, U.S law was governed by one of these decisions: Plessy v. Ferguson, established in 1896. The case established the “separate but equal” doctrine. That decision allowed racial segregation in public facilities, as long as the separate facilities were considered “equal.” In practice, facilities for Black individuals were severely underfunded and unequal to those of white individuals.  

In 1954, the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka challenged established constitutional law, stating that “separate but equal” was inherently unequal, at least in schools. The Supreme Court voted unanimously, setting the wheels in motion for the end of segregation in the United States.  

In both cases, the public had little say in the legal precedent that these cases would establish. Courts today still follow this system, where they are capable of changing the law despite being unelected by the public.  

Today, this dynamic continues. Longitudinal surveys by Jessee and Malhotra (2022) show that since 2020, the Court has become significantly more conservative than the public at large. Many citizens now underestimate just how conservative the Court is, which impacts expectations about rulings. In a more recent case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, overturned Roe v. Wade, ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. 62% disapproved of reversing Roe, yet the courts overturned it anyway. 

The Rise of the Administrative State 

Modern governance involves highly technical issues like environmental regulation, financial markets, medicine, or communications, so Congress delegates tasks to specialized agencies. Unelected officials run agencies. While they answer to the President and Congress, the public has little direct influence over their decisions. This creates the sense of a “fourth branch of government” that wields great power without the same democratic checks.  

Agencies became the real rule-makers over time, with the ability to pass restrictions while bypassing the long and politically expensive process. For example, the FDA has the power to choose which substances are allowed in the manufacturing of food products, as well as which substances are legal and can be prescribed by medical professionals. While regulation of illicit substances is widely regarded as necessary, the public has little say in policies despite being the people these policies affect.  

In 1984, the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. Supreme Court laid out a two-step test for reviewing agency interpretation of statutes they administer: if Congress has directly addressed the issue, both courts and agencies must follow that intent, If not, and the statute is ambiguous, courts defer to the agency’s interpretation so long as it is reasonable. 

For nearly four decades, Chevron deference empowered agencies with significant leeway in interpreting ambiguous statutes, rooted in their expertise and role in policymaking. Courts generally hesitated to override reasonable agency judgments. But on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (consolidated with Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce), overruled the Chevron doctrine. The Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires courts to exercise “independent judgment” in interpreting statutes, and that deferring to agencies simply due to ambiguity is unlawful under the APA. 

The Minority Rules 

The current American democracy is littered with structural biases. These systems limit the power of the majority and often go against the majority opinion. Some of these systems were built into the Constitution, many are newer or have been manipulated to suppress majority vote. 

One of the simplest examples of structural bias is the fact that America’s least populated state has the same power in the Senate as the most populated. This dramatically shifts the power balance between states, making a single vote in smaller states more powerful than that same vote in larger states. For example, a Wyoming vote is worth roughly 68 times more than a California vote. This means that citizens in populous states have less influence per person, even though they collectively make up most of the country. 

Another controversial structural bias is the Electoral College, which allows minority vote winners to become the President, the most powerful person in the country. This has happened five times in American history, most recently, with Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton. Clinton won the popular vote by about 2.9 million votes, but Trump won the Electoral College 304–227 by flipping narrow margins in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 

Gerrymandering is the act of redrawing a state's district lines to benefit a candidate in an upcoming election. Most recently, this has happened in Texas. Republicans began pushing a legislative redistricting plan, unusually timed between censuses, aimed at shifting electoral advantage toward the GOP for the 2026 U.S. House elections. The redistricting dismantles Democratic strongholds around Austin, Dallas, Houston, and South Texas, reshaping districts to favor GOP electoral outcomes. This allows minority votes to overtake the majority in many of Texas’s districts. 

Just one of these systems suppresses the majority vote, but these three structural biases, among other compounds, give the minority power that can overwhelm the majority.  

Democracy, Redefined 

There are competing theories about what democracy actually means. The most popular theories include the majoritarian theory, the rule of the many, the liberal theory, the protection of rights against the many, and the deliberative theory, which achieves legitimacy through reasoned debate. 

The majoritarian theory is simple, stating that the legitimacy of democracy comes from the will of the majority. Policies should reflect what most people want, since “the people” are sovereign. While simple, this risks the tyranny of the majority passing policies that can oppress minorities.  

The liberal theory states that democracy is not only about majority rule but also about safeguarding individual rights and minority protections. Institutions (courts, constitutions, bills of rights) limit majority power. This theory provides guardrails against oppression, ensuring liberty, equality, and rule of law, but can become very counter-majoritarian very easily. 

The deliberative theory states that democracy is not only about aggregating preferences but about transforming them through public reasoning. Citizens and representatives should engage in dialogue to reach justifiable, reasoned decisions. This encourages thoughtful decision-making on behalf of the people, but assumes citizens have time, interest, and capacity for serious debate, and debates can last for a very long time. 

Whatever the theory, the same thesis holds: “power to the people.” So, then, why does the power currently sit with elite individuals? America tends to align closely with the liberal theory, meaning that the country must strike a balance between the government and the power of the people. 

Other Democracies, Other Choices 

The U.S. presidential system differs dramatically from other worldwide parliamentary systems, like the United Kingdom, Germany, or Australia. Parliamentary systems began with the Magna Carta, while the presidential system started with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. This means that the parliamentary system has had significantly more time, almost 500 years, to work out flaws in the system. 

The U.S. president is both head of state and head of government. They are elected separately from the legislature with a fixed term and are difficult to remove from office via impeachment. While in parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister (PM) is head of government, while a monarch or President may serve as head of state, which is often ceremonial. 

Parliamentary systems merge executive and legislative duties, while the U.S. has separation of powers, splitting it into the executive branch led by the President, and the legislative branch of Congress. This creates a political slowdown with laws taking longer to pass, and a potential conflict of interest between Congress and the President.  

There are many ways to go about organizing a government, and there is no perfect solution, but no matter the government, it should serve the interests of the people it represents. 

The Future of Majority Rule in America 

In the future, many scenarios could play out. America is capable of change; it just needs the right person behind it, and while no such figure has appeared, one could predict the future of majority rule. 

One possibility is that there becomes more judicial assertiveness post-Chevron. This would be especially harmful to majoritarian systems as unelected officials gain even more power than they already have. Congressional gridlock could lead to even more reliance on agencies, further removing power from the majority and the people. It’s possible, however, that the populist backlash against unelected officials is a sign that power is being restored to the people and majority rule is being reignited.