We investigate the decision-making mechanism of political majorities in indirect democracy and its excesses. The main goal is to inquire about the intrinsic legitimacy of the people given its primarily quantitative character. Is it enough to have a majority of the people to guarantee decision-making legitimacy? What are the risks of having the majority as a decision-making mechanism? This paper uses the hypothetical-deductive method through bibliographic analysis and data collection. The initial hypothesis to be confirmed points that people do not receive legitimacy from their numbers, but from the quality of their initiatives, and that it is not a naturally just, but prone to tyrannize minorities, and should be limited by norms. It suggests the delimitation of the spheres of how to govern and who governs through fixed norms, under the penalty of insufficient, incompetent, and negligent decisions.
