A key point in the philosophical foundation of democracy is that it is a good system for making decisions of consequence. One can fashion a simplistic thought

A key point in the philosophical foundation of democracy is that it is a good system for making decisions of consequence. One can fashion a simplistic thought experiment where a simple majority votes to take resources from the minority, presumably against the minoritys' will. That seems rather unjust, or unfair. What this glosses over is that governments need to make policy and decisions. Inevitably, there will be winners and losers. Just because decision making power is taken away from the majority does not mean that more fair outcomes are likely. Some other method of making decisions, let's say by rule of a (hopefully enlightened) monarch, still needs to be implemented. And these decisions will have major consequences on the population, creating some winners and losers in the outcome. The argument for Democracy is that it, on balance, will protect the population from potential tyranny of a despotic or corrupt ruler, better than other forms of government. The political structure of the US government has built in protection against a tyrannical reign by the majority of the population over the minority. The system of "checks and balances" is a good idea, however imperfectly it is implemented. As a practical matter, the "power of the people" is limited in any case. There is an actual "elite" in the US, and members of the elite hold disproportionate power. For better or worse.