Can you provide any information regarding the laws to safeguard against something like this?
I am not a legal scholar and my layman's level of studying the founding documents of this country is only several months old.
The closest thing I can quote at this time as to codified laws, with my limited legal knowledge, are the laws that set up our Electoral College, our
House of Representatives allocated by population, as opposed to every state having two senators.
The entire Federal level of elected officials is based on representation, not on granting us the ability to effect our laws with a vote from the
citizenry as a whole.
However, there are innumerable documents that unambiguously state the Founding Father's abhorrence of Democracy as a governing model. Perhaps the
easiest accessible and well known are the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
Perhaps the best "concept framing" I can summarize is that the Framers had two goals in mind: A government constrained by the people [voters] and
"the running of the people's business" insulated from the people: Passions of the day running through the electorate could not directly "inspire"
The "average man" is many things, but expert in law is not necessarily one of them, and the Framers wished ensure that the citizenry, the "unwashed
masses" if you will, could not directly institute laws that would benefit the majority, often at the expense of the minority.
As an example: I live in a fairly small state, but because my state has the same number of Senators  as the most populous states, *I* am [somewhat]
protected against the majority's wishes of states such as California and New York. My two Senators have an equally weighted vote as their two
The population has a higher degree of of a "representational voice" in our House of Representatives where a state's voice is directly proportional
to the number of people within that state.
Wrap the entire system together and no majority can steam roll all. All-in-all, far superior to a Democracy where 51% of the country to vote to
nationalize the oil industry or confiscate the wealth of the wealthiest 1% of the nation [well, more so than we already attempt]. Or, where 51% of
the population could vote allow completely free and open boarders to any and all entrants. Or, 51% could vote to "nuke" Iran, or invade Canada
or Mexico. Or, 51% could vote to make the offense of drunk driving punishable by a life sentence in prison.
Governance is meant to be "slow and deliberative," not ruled by "the passions of the day." It doesn't always work out that way, but it's the
best we've got. The "unwashed masses" are not known for "slow and deliberate" deliberation. Just look to any of our elections. We cannot, as a
population, even manage to inform ourselves [a generalization] of issues on a local level, that impact us as individuals on a local level. What
suggests that the citizens of California and New York would concern themselves about becoming informed of potential consequences to "the fly over
states"? I continually use California and New York because, as a block, they represent a very LARGE proportion of the US population and a formidable
alliance is easy to imagine.
Sorry, I'm sure my answers are wholly inadequate to your question. Perhaps others, far more knowledgeable will pick up the baton.