Random Thoughts on Group Think and the Perils of Majority Rule

The founding fathers were so wise.  They were students of the history of this planet, which means they were students of humanity.  They concluded that government can only be legitimate if it exists to protect the rights of all constituents.  This, alone, would be enough to guarantee their place forever as perhaps the most visionary of mankind's social leaders.  However, they also came to another conclusion - the masses do not always make the best decisions.

In the context of the caveman concept, this makes perfect sense.  In the early days of humanity, the future did not bode well for those who departed from the group.  There truly was safety in numbers.  Those with high status decided the course for the rest of the group.  This, of course, was not particularly problematic, considering the fact that those with status usually got it because they were skilled at survival.  Those below them would do well to follow their lead.  Nowadays, however, this is not the case.  Status can be obtained in many ways.  Indeed, those who are simply good at distracting others from their lives can get quite high on social totem pole.  This means blindly following the leader isn't necessarily a good plan.

The founding fathers dealt with this in two major ways.  The first was the process for the election of senators.  The members of the house of representatives are elected by general elections.  The senators, however, were originally to be elected by officials in the state legislatures.  The idea was that elected officials from each state would be in a better position (i.e. more intelligent and more informed) to determine who makes a good representative at the federal level.  So while the house represents the general public, the senate represents an ostensibly more intellectually equipped subset of it.  They balance each other out.  For example, when the masses clamour for a handout, the senate can say no because it will have negative consequences that are unforeseen by those who worry more about today than tomorrow.  This is how the government, as envisioned by the founding fathers, was supposed to work.  Alas, the 17th amendment came along and removed that critical check against the possibility of true majority rule.  Short of abolishing that amendment, which I am wholeheartedly in favor of, there isn't much to be done.  But the second protection against group think, the electoral college, is still in force, though there are those (Hillary Clinton, for example) who would love to do away with it. 

Though it is admittedly difficult to grasp the inner workings of this process, it is clearly a good idea.  (If you're interested in an easy explanation of how the system works, check this out - http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm .)  The founders adopted it not because they thought the public wasn't up to the task of selecting a president by general election, but because it prevented the president from always being selected by the most populous states, which would render irrelevant the interests of the smaller and/or less populous states.  And this is the key to the struggle against group think.  The majority is not always right.  In fact, it could be argued that every major advance in mankind's history has been initiated by individuals who were starkly in the minority. 

So what's the point here, you ask?  Simple - you can't ever determine the validity of an idea by considering how many people agree with it.  Though it is part of our caveman heritage to side with the majority, it is when we think for ourselves that good things happen.  And we can see by the crop of loser politicians in our legislative branch what happens when the majority gets to make the decisions.  The general public is more easily swayed by pandering than a more intelligent and well-informed subset of the population.  As far as I'm concerned, the dismal state of political affairs in this country can be traced directly back to the adoption of the 17th amendment. 

In closing, let me loosely reference the thoughts of the pre-eminent evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins.  In his essay entitled, "Trial By Jury" (The Observer, November 1997), Dawkins makes the point that juries aren't necessarily better than judges.  Though the idea is that twelve heads will do a better job of considering the evidence than one judge, things don't actually work out that way.  This is because the twelve individuals on the jury are doing their deliberation together and because an individual judge is essentially, by definition, better equipped to consider the matter.  The jurors influence each other, which means the jury's conclusion often depends more upon the predilections of one or two vocal individuals than it does on the independent conclusions of twelve impartial parties.  Once again, humans follow the leader, unless they are taught to do otherwise.  It's a good thing to keep in mind.