Anelection is a formaldemocraticdecision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office.
Who may be excluded from a share in the ruling of men? Time and time again the world has answered:
The Ignorant
The Inexperienced
The Guarded
The Unwilling
That is, we have assumed that only the intelligent should vote, or those who know how to rule men, or those who are not under benevolent guardianship, or those who ardently desire the right.
These restrictions are not arguments for the wide distribution of the ballot—they are rather reasons for restriction addressed to the self-interest of the present real rulers. We say easily, for instance, "The ignorant ought not to vote." We would say, "No civilized state should have citizens too ignorant to participate in government," and this statement is but a step to the fact: that no state is civilized which has citizens too ignorant to help rule it. Or, in other words,education is not a prerequisite to political control—political control is the cause of popular education.
The belief that the people of ademocracy rule themselves through their elected representatives, though sanctified bytradition and made venerable by multiple repetitions, is actuallymysticalnonsense.& In anyelection, only a percentage of thepeople vote. Those who can't vote because ofage or other disqualifications, and those who don't vote because ofconfusion,apathy, ordisgust at a Tweedledum-Tweedledummer choice can hardly be said to have any voice in the passage of thelaws which govern them. Nor can theindividuals as yet unborn, who will be ruled by those laws in thefuture. And, out of those who do "exercise their franchise," the large minority who voted for the loser are also deprived of a voice, at least during the term of the winner they voted against.
But even the individuals who voted and who managed to pick a winner are not actually ruling themselves in any sense of the word. They voted for aman, not for the specific laws which will govern them. Even all those who had cast their ballots for the winning candidate would be hopelessly confused and divided if asked to vote on these actual laws. Nor would their representative be bound to abide by their wishes, even if it could be decided what these "collective wishes" were. And besides all this, a large percentage of the actual power of a mature democracy, such as theU.S.A., is in the hands of the tens of thousands of faceless appointedbureaucrats who are unresponsive to the will of anycitizen without special pull.
Under a democratic form of government, a minority of the individuals governed select the winning candidate. The winning candidate then proceeds to decide issues largely on the basis of pressure fromspecial-interest groups. What it actually amounts to is rule by those withpolitical pull over those without it. Contrary to thebrainwashing we have received in government-runschools, democracy—the rule of the people through their elected representatives—is a cruel hoax!
Not only is democracy mystical nonsense, it is alsoimmoral. If one man has noright to impose his wishes on another, then ten million men have no right to impose their wishes on the one, since the initiation offorce is wrong (and the assent of even the most overwhelming majority can never make it morally permissible). Opinions—even majority opinions—neither createtruth nor alterfacts. Alynch mob is democracy in action. So much for mob rule.