Do the results of elections express the will of the people?

A world where every vote is truly counted, where the will of the people is the guiding

force of all decisions made. While democratic nations may aspire to such a vision, our current systems almost always fall short of this ideal, and it has always been contested whether elections can be truly relied upon to reflect the "will of the people." This essay will employ Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of the general will to demonstrate how existing democratic systems are ineffective at truly expressing the collective interest of the people, defining the “will of the people” through the use of Rousseau’s “general will”. This essay will outline Rousseau's conception of the general will before turning to how, in practice, this is unrealised in the modern world due to the irrationality of voters and the manipulation of elections by powerful influences and money.

To understand what is meant by the “will of the people”, Rousseau’s “general will” can

be a useful frame which offers a developed and nuanced interpretation of the term. In The Social Contract (1762), Rousseau argues that true sovereignty lies with the people as a whole and that their collective interests should guide political decision-making. Therefore, the "will of the people" can be defined as the collective will and needs of society as a whole. The general will reflects the decisions that people would come to if they divested themselves of their individual interests and thought about what would be for the good of the whole. This definition stands in contrast to the will of the majority. This is because the majority's will may not always be in the interest of the community as a whole and may even be harmful to specific stakeholders because it is derived from the aggregated particular interests of individuals. Rousseau's general will takes into account the interests and well-being of all members of the community and seeks to create a society that is just and equitable for everyone. For Rousseau, equality is central to the idea of the general will, which should be an expression of collective power rather than a reflection of the interests of some dominating over the interests of others.

Irrational Voter Behaviour: Contradictions and Inconsistencies

Rousseau believes that the general will requires voters to have the knowledge and wis-

dom to reflect and identify what is in the interests of the community. This means that the electorate must be well-informed and rational for the general will to be realised. In most modern democracies, however, ill-informed voters mean that most electorates are unable to judge the general interest as well as their own interest in a rational way. When people do cast their ballots based on what they perceive to be in the country's best interest, this impression is frequently based on weak reasoning. Voters often demonstrate a susceptibility to misleading or false claims that align with their pre-existing biases. A notable example occurred during the Brexit referendum, where misinformation regarding Turkey's potential membership in the European Union emerged, implying that large-scale immigration of Syrians and Turks into Britain would occur if Britain remained in the E.U. (Kirkup, 2018). This narrative played into existing anti-immigrant biases held by certain voters, leading them to vote in favour of Brexit, despite few experts seriously seeing Turkish membership as a feasible possibility. In other cases, some electorates even treated the referendum frivolously, as some voted for Brexit as a protest vote because of their dissatisfaction with the status quo, without necessarily expecting the Leave campaign to win. Such inconsistencies make it challenging to determine people's will and can lead to election results that do not accurately represent their preferences. The irrationality of voters undermines their ability to reflect on what is genuinely in the interests of the community, meaning that elections are rarely able to express the general will.

Crucially, voters are not just irrational but rather display certain systemic biases that

mean the general will is consistently undermined. One might argue that the miracle of aggregation shows that the collective makes better decisions. This is because ignorant voters will be irrational on issues randomly, so their votes will cancel out, and the small number of informed people will tip the balance in favour of a rational outcome. Under this view, even if 99% of the electorate is irrational, an election will have a high likelihood of producing a rational outcome(Page and Shapiro, 1992). However, Caplan (2007) shows that this model works only with no systematic bias. In reality, however, such biases, such as an anti-market bias, can lead to election results that may not truly reflect the interests of the people and, therefore, the general will. For example, William Poole, the former St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank president, noted that when asked if they had a favourable opinion on international commerce, 58% of Americans said it did offer the potential for economic progress. However, more respondents replied yes than no when asked if they supported increasing import taxes on goods from other countries (Steelman 2016). This displays the illogical nature of electorates' voting habits (with voters regularly supporting contradictory policies) as well as the gap between experts and the public on many issues. Non-economists, in this case, voters, are not experts; they often present biases against policies and are not able to see what is in the best interest of society. Thus the decision-making limitations of voters hinders their ability to consider their own interests as well as the broader common good, consequently impeding their capacity to discern and support the realisation of the "general will.”

Manipulation of the Will of People

Institutional and structural barriers also mean that elections rarely represent the will of

the people because of their tendency to further distance the interests of the people from the out-

come of elections. From the outset, democratic structures cannot even be relied upon to produce election results that reflect the will of the majority, let alone the people's general will. In the United States, for example, a candidate can win the presidency without receiving the majority of the popular vote. Five American presidents came into office without winning the popular vote. Even outside the United States, most electoral systems still allow a candidate to win with only a plurality. The United Kingdom, for example, has not had a party come into power with an absolute majority of the vote since 1931. It is worth acknowledging that, in practice, most elections fail to represent the majority, let alone the ideal notion of the general will that depends on an ideal democratic system.

Rousseau's cautionary insight underscores the vulnerability of the general will to manipulation and distortion in the presence of charismatic leaders who are able to lead the citizens of a

democracy away from the general will. In most modern societies, the goal is to have leaders

elected based on their qualifications and expertise. Leaders who possess charisma, though, have an additional ability to win elections that may not reflect entirely on their preparedness for elected offices. The cult of personality surrounding these leaders can lead to voters casting their ballots based on personal affinity rather than rational decision-making. An example often cited is former U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump promised people defence against Chinese imports and foreign labour while stoking racism, xenophobia, patriarchy, and other cultural frustrations. Trump was extremely influential during the election, using his celebrity status and charisma to command popular support, even if public majorities regularly opposed his policies on issues like abortion and the environment. Consequently, election results may not accurately represent the people's will, as voters may be led astray by charisma rather than policy considerations, which Rousseau directly warns against.

Political parties can further distort the will of the people by presenting platforms that ap-

peal to voters but may not genuinely represent their best interests. Political parties always seek tomanipulate voter interests to try and secure favourable outcomes in elections. This means politicians are eager to manipulate individuals for electoral gain. Parties choosing what should be debated is a good case in point and operates as an example of agenda-setting power (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962). The Republicans in the United States, for example, have increasingly focused on transgender issues, prompting heated debates and discussions. The focus on transgender people, despite their extremely small representation among the population at large (0.6%), raises questions about why transgender rights has become such a fixture of political debate. The answer lies in the interests of the involved parties. If independent voters perceive the GOP as standing up for reasonable school rules against "woke gender" ideology run amok, focusing on transgender problems might assist them in elections. The Republicans foresaw that suburban parents, concerned about what is happening in their public schools, might provide significant support. The GOP heavily influences the discussion direction and manipulates peoples’ interests through its power in a democracy, thereby manoeuvring the election outcomes and distorting the expression of the general will.

Another example of the utilisation of power in democracies is the exploitation of money

which has become increasingly commonplace in elections (Hua, 2021). Political campaigns have become increasingly expensive, and candidates often rely on wealthy donors to fund their campaigns. For instance, the National Rifle Association uses direct activism and financing to influence the Republican Party, mainly to pass laws that loosen gun control legislation. Since 2010, the NRA has directed more than $140 million to pro-gun candidates. Ongoing concerns and allegations persist regarding the attempts of foreign corporations and entities to influence election outcomes in other countries, often through financial contributions to political campaigns or other forms of political interference. For instance, Russian nationals Alexander Torshin and Maria Butina illegally funnelled funds to the NRA to support Donald Trump's victory in 2016. Their objective was to harm Hillary Clinton's campaign and exacerbate political and social unrest in the country. It was considered by many people an act of a broader effort to undermine trust in democratic institutions and sow discord in the United States. As a result of the interference, the voices of ordinary citizens are often drowned out by powerful groups and wealthy individuals. This undermines democracy and faith in electoral processes but also means that election results do not genuinely reflect the will of the people, as voters may be influenced by the visibility and perceived viability of well-funded candidates.

Conclusion

This essay has used Rousseau's concept of the general will to highlight the shortcomings

in modern elections, stemming from an ill-informed electorate that cannot identify the public

interest and a process of manipulation that allows elites to distort the outcomes of elections. As

such, it is important to recognise the limitations of what can be achieved through elections alone. Crucially, this does not mean that democracy should be jettisoned altogether. Instead, whilst elections cannot ever attain this ideal, they should always strive towards it and the eventual goal of creating election results that reflect the general will of the people. This requires addressing franchise issues in the democratic system and ensuring that the electorate is well-informed, educated, and capable of discerning what is in the interest of the collective good. It is imperative to limit the influence of parties, money in politics, and charismatic leaders, all of which can distort the democratic process and undermine the will of the people. By doing so, we can help to ensure that elections are a true expression of the people's will and a reflection of the values that underpin our democratic society. Democracy is a permanent work in; the challenge for democracies is to strive to create elections that are mechanisms for representation and a genuine reflection of the general will of the people.

Bibliography

Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz. "Two Faces of Power." The American Political Science

Review, vol. 56, no. 4, 1962, pp. 947-52. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1952796.

Accessed 27 June 2023.

Blake, Aaron. "How the Republican Party Has Shifted against Transgender Rights." The

Washington Post, 1 May 2023, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/01/

republicans-transgender-rights-polls/.

Caplan, Bryan Douglas. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies.

Princeton, Princeton UP, 2007.

Flanigan, Jessica. "The Case against Voting for Charisma." The Conversation, 30 May 2019,

theconversation.com/the-case-against-voting-for-charisma-115292.

Hua, Charles. "Campaign Finance: How did Money Influence 2020 U.S. Senate Elections?"

Harvard Political Review, 8 May 2021, harvardpolitics.com/campaign-finance-how-did-

money-influence-2020-u-s-senate-elections/.

Jackson, Paul. "Donald Trump Is the Archetypal Far-right Charismatic Leader. But His Magic

Won't Last." The Guardian, 19 July 2019, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/

jul/19/donald-trump-archetypal-far-right-charismatic-leader.

Kirkup, James. "The lies and liars of Brexit." The Spectator, www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-

lies-and-liars-of-brexit/.Lemieux, Pierre. "The Vacuity of the Political 'We.'" Econlib, 6 Oct. 2014, www.econlib.org/

library/Columns/y2014/Lemieuxwe.html.\

Page, Benjamin I., and Robert Y. Shapiro. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in

Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago, U of Chicago P, 1992.

Paul, Mack. "Building Democracy 2.0: Rousseau and 'the Will of the People.'" Common Cause, 1

Dec. 2020, www.commoncause.org/north-carolina/democracy-wire/building-

democracy-2-0-rousseau-and-the-will-of-the-people/.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. New York City, Penguin Books, 2006.

Steelman, Aaron. "Why Do Economists and the Public Disagree?" Econ Focus,

www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2016/q1/profession.