Just roughly, "The Tyranny of the Majority" is mainly about Guinier's views on how to approach reaching a consensus without disregarding anyone's views. She explains that it can be as simple as "taking turns", therefore there being no winner or looser(creating unfairness). She applies her view towards government tendencies and clearly states that the democratic promise has not been met and believes it should be based upon the idea of "taking turns and disaggregating the majority.." 

How does Gruinier's article relate to "the Case for Torture"? 

I saw a similar concept between both articles which was, what is considered to be fair? Guinier pointed out that majority voting is unfair and the idea of taking turns is fair. Proving that majority voting causes desegregation,  she mentions Brown Rice high school and how majority voting caused two separate proms because the african american students were outnumbered when voting for choice in music. 

In Levin's article he explains how torture can be considered fair (though it is considered unfair throughout the public). He gives many scenarios, such as possible terrorists attacks, and reasons on how torturing is a method that can save lives.  Levin puts things in perspective; torture one person to save millions or not torture and put millions of innocent lives at risk. By doing this I believe he is wanting to at least change views on what fairness should be. Sure it is not humane to torture, but it is fair to torture if it saves many lives. 

Also, both articles insist on the reader to think about the future based on scenarios. Levin states that in many years from now there could be a terrorist attack threatening thousands of lives and we as readers should really think about torturing being one of the best options to save those thousands of lives. Now, Guinier also leaves the reader to wonder about the future of our government and the fairness of it. She is wanting the reader to consider other possible ways "voting and representational systems" can affect(positive/negative) the idea of Madisonian Majority. Meaning how can we include everyone's opinion into a concise vote?