If majority rule rules then why cannot the majority rule?

One thing going on last week at the C of E GS was the circulation of material in favour of TEC's or in favour of ACNA's accounting of the ways in which breakdown and departure have taken place within American Anglicanism/Episcopalianism.

Now published - thanks to Stand Firm and Titus One Nine - is an important memo by C. K. Robertson, Canon to the Presiding Bishop, in which he lays out, not to put to fine a point on it all, the egregious sins of ACNA, including grave deceit in their telling of the story. It makes plausible reading - the least we could expect from a man with a Durham Ph. D.

But now in counter-balance, and with a few more supportive facts, I might add, is a reply from one of the people most savaged by C. K. Robertson's missive, Marc Robertson, the Rector of Christ Church Savannah.

This thought strikes me: a significant justification of the directions TEC has taken and will take on same sex blessings/ordinations is that the majority has spoken decisively when votes have been taken on resolutions and on consents. Majority rules, in the true spirit of Western democracy. But Marc Robertson's account clearly lays out the significant majority agreement which was reached at Christ Church Savanneh to secede from the Diocese of Georgia. Is this not also decision making by majority rule?