Majority rule can either be used appropriately by consent of all parties, or abused to obstruct justice or deny due process and equal representation/protections of the law.
1. First, as long as the parties agree to use it, in deciding policy by vote, that is within the law. However, because of the bipartisan pressures for one candidate to win "all" rights to representation, there is more coercion, bullying, emotional manipulation of media perceptions, and censorship/restrictions so there is not truly free choice in most cases.
2. If parties DO NOT agree on policies, but have major political, religious or personal differences, it is in essence unlawful to abuse majority-rule to impose or oppress dissenters, which violates the right of all people, even minority opinions to equal protection and representation of interests. For differences, either reconciliable or not, I recommend:
A. mediation/conflict resolution - to decide on points of agreement, or to allow separate policies or options so that taxpayers do not have to fund programs against their beliefs
B. proportional representation - so that all parties and persons may participate as directly or indirectly as needed to guarantee their interests are included, in addition to making decisions by consensus so there is no bullying or unfair competition to override each other
C. judicial freedom for parties to choose which lawyers, mediators, and judges in their disputes or issues they agree will facilitate a consensual decision agreeable to all affected
NOTE: You can still meet the criteria of "majority-rule" by making decisions by consensus.
Or parties can agree to compromise on certain issues decided by vote or arbitration.
But where they do NOT agree to submit to majority-rule, I would require either consensus or separate policies/funding for separate programs or policies to prevent imposition.
With gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, immigration, etc. where people clearly do not agree and fear the equal protection of their values are at stake, those issues involving personal, political, or religious beliefs cannot be legislated against the will of persons affected without violating the spirit of the law based on consent and equal protections.
How many here agree with Senator Gregg?
Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”
people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend
Some reasons people do not defend a higher standard based on consensus decisions:
1. They don't believe consensus is possible, so they keep using majority-rule
2. They benefit from the system as is, so they have no motivation to reform it
a. Note 1: the current political system rewards people for crediting their party or candidate while attacking the opponents; so the idea of sharing credit for mutual solutions is foreign
b. Note 2: the system of scaring up votes and ratings by advertising crises that the candidate is needed to solve keeps people dependent on elected leaders to get the vote out
3. They don't practice it themselves, so they cannot demand the same of others
Eventually, by process of elimination or trial and error, all the problems that cannot be solved by majority-rule politics will be passed on to the people who can solve them.
So the responsibility for public and institutional reforms will fall on the people, the businesses, schools, charities, and nonprofits with the freedom to work cooperatively on effective solutions without interference by politics or popularity contests.
As for elected leaders, the ones with the vision to model govt programs and policies after private sector solutions may still be successful in using the current system of government.
Majority-rule may serve as a check to vote out bad policies, but forming good ones will come from people working cooperatively across political and economic lines and groups.
Party politics seems more a media game to sell ratings that obstructs democratic process.
