I think both arguments have their merits. On the one hand, the people who elected Trump constituted a narrow minority: Hillary got the numerical majority in November’s election. One could argue that the Electoral College actually safeguarded America against a sort of urban tyranny, protecting the desires and wishes of rural America. Though it constitutes a wider geographic swath, there are fewer voters (and fewer wealthy voters) in these regions. So there is something to this argument.

However, many look at Trump’s largely white voter base, and argue this is an instance in which one demographic of America constitutes a tyrannical majority against other minority groups. And this would be in keeping with Madison and Tocqueville’s definition of a tyrannical majority, too: they worried one large group could crush the rights and worries of smaller minority groups. This is something minority groups have indeed worried about under Trump’s presidency.

Here’s the dilemma. If America’s elites (influential media, sources within the executive branch, and politicians) find some method to impeach Trump before actual wrongdoing is proved, they’ll make him into a martyr. Voters will be in uproar, incensed at what they see as a form of meritocratic tyranny. If, however, Trump continues to act and speak recklessly without checks or reprimands, that would also be concerning—it would signal an unwholesome use of executive power.