jim.shamlin.com

Electoral Crowds

Electoral crowds are collectives invested with the power of selecting, by majority consent, individuals who will hold certain powers and functions of the state. As they represent all of society, they are heterogeneous crowds, though their task is defined in advance: to choose between different candidates.

(EN: It seems a bit of a stretch to me, as elections are not often held extemporaneously, but by individuals casting ballots in private. Political rallies may assemble crowds, but there is often a "cooling off" period that enables participants to return to their senses before the actual election. So I'm not sure if what Le Bon has to say in this chapter is entirely accurate, or entirely applicable.)

Voters display a similar aversion to reasoning as crowds, and are irritable, gullible, and simple-minded. Leaders who are elected are not necessarily intelligent, experienced, or qualified, but their campaign plays upon the same factors that appeal to crowds: affirmation, repetition, prestige, and contagion.

Le Bon examines, in a rather disjointed way, the methods that have been shown to be persuasive with voters:

One should not suppose that these tactics are effective only for a specific class of voters. Though they seem geared to the gullible, uneducated, ignorant, and stupid they are equally effective with highly educated and intelligent persons - who do not elevate their fellows of a crowd to their intellectual level, but instead sink to the bottom and wallow with their inferiors.

He considers democracy to be no better than dictatorship, and is capable of being far worse. People would be better off under an intelligent and kind dictator than left to the mercy of their neighbors who, acting as a mass, are incapable of logic and indisposed to pity. Even a tyrant is better, as his identity is known and he can be deposed.

He also considers the notion of restricted suffrage, which limits voting to those who are "intellectually capable" - but again he reflects on the behavior of educated and intelligent men in the context of the crowd. It also does not follow that because a man is wise in one thing, he is wise n all things: a mathematician, an architect, a surgeon, and an attorney have little knowledge of political issues and are unqualified to debate foreign policy. Consider the abominable decisions made by university committees, and it is clear that when acting as a herd, educators cannot even come to a rational conclusion about education.

Ultimately, "government play but a small part in the life of a people" and most of their daily activities have nothing to do with the law. Nor are they in most cases beholden to group decisions, but left to act as they see fit, acting on their own judgment and being reinforced by rewards or punished by failures. And for the most part, this works out very well.