The most prevalent form of democracy is called "liberal democracy". No need to cross-referrence this with our common perception of "Liberalism", as many consveratives would find many of their views to be the same as Classical Liberalism. I found, upon taking political science, that Classical Liberalism and Conservatism take forms that are far from the pseudo representations we see today. I personally like Classical Liberalism the best, but there are great areas of all philosophies to utilize of course.

Anywho, liberal democracy utilizes the the "first past the post" method of majority representation. Hence, like texas said, 51% can end up supressing the rights of the other 49%. This is why a lot of places are toying with the idea of reforming their systems to one of proportional representation. I forget all the specifics, as it's been over a year for me since taking political science, but the system basically goes like this:


50% + 1 or more leads to victory, as in classic liberal democracy. However, the victor in the system of proportional representation only gets exactly 50% + 1. If they get, say, 76%, then 26% of their votes ( -1 ) would go to the second place winner. The second place winner would then have their excess votes alotted to the third place winner, and so forth. This basically ensures that the rights of minorities recieve proportional representation when implementing legislation, as the name suggests.
There is more to it, but as I said my memory is too rusty to describe the rest.


A couple years ago my province had our election and we voted on having a reform to PR. The vote lost by a narrow margin, and I was one of the people who voted against it. I was, however, one of many who didn't fully understand the system since it does get a bit complicated. After studying it thoroughly in political science though, I find the system preferrable and wish I had voted the other way.