The majority of one often works against the minority of many. Such power is the antithesis of democracy.

Bill's reference, however, suggests that a "majority of one" can also represent the triumph of individual freedom(s) over an oppressive state (that may or may not actually be a dictatorship). I would also tie this in with belM's understanding of the phrase as suggesting one vote can make all the difference and tip the balance.

But if you assume a situation where the majority decision is dictated (for want of a better word ) by one vote, which vote makes the difference? In a way each person who voted for the eventual majority decision is the individual that made the difference.

There is a very important ambiguity here. We don't want an unelected dictator telling us what to do - but on the other hand, we may wholly admire an "ordinary" person standing up for their rights and ours and creating a change in the law.
If you think about it, whether someone has been democratically elected or not isn't as important as whether what they want fits reasonably well with what we want. Let's face it, when you vote a political party in you're always adopting a whole raft of policies that you may loathe along with those that you actually voted for.

Anyway, that's more than enough politics.

Fisk