As election campaigning continues in Saint Lucia, many political pundits and politicians have commented on the numbers, nature, and impact of crowd sizes on electoral success.
The arguments across the political divide usually go like this: one side boasts about its numbers, while the other dismisses them as AI-generated or irrelevant, pointing out that large crowds have not always translated into victories.
Then, when the first side later draws a massive crowd, the other retorts, “I thought that you did not believe in the potency of crowd sizes as being a determinant of election victories.”
Meanwhile, those in the middle sit at home, waiting to cast, or not cast, their ballots. Their absence from rallies reinforces their belief that crowd sizes don’t decide elections. They argue it rarely does, citing examples of politicians who drew huge crowds yet lost.
So, what is accurate and what is not? The lawyerly answer is: “It depends.” It depends on how you frame the question and what you believe the function of crowd size to be within a campaign. It depends on whether you see elections solely as contests where ballots alone determine the winner.
That perspective is incomplete. If you’re willing to look beyond it, read on. My central position is that crowd size can, and does, matter in electoral politics.
Why Crowd Size Matters
Much of electoral politics rests on a candidate and party’s ability to mobilise supporters and persuade voters to believe in their vision, promises, and leadership – and then show up at the polls. Without a broad cross-section of people making that determination, politicians would not be elected. That much is obvious. In local parlance, this is why people put their ti kwa. Politics is a numbers game, and victory comes only from securing the greatest number of votes in a constituency.
But elections are not just the sum of ballots. Campaigning and other elements shape the outcome. The most visible manifestation of a party’s ability to mobilise voters before polling day is the size of the crowds at its meetings and rallies.
To be viable, a politician and their party must demonstrate throughout the campaign that they have convinced a wide cross-section of people to dedicate their time and energy in support. Popularity is one of the most powerful tools in politics, and it is made manifest not only in polls but in the ability to draw people out of their homes to attend rallies. Crowd size reflects that ability to mobilise.
In Caribbean politics, buzz and excitement are critical. They are most visible in large crowds, where people dedicate time to join the fanfare of political activity. Our politics and popular culture thrive on vibes and energy, and there can be no vibes without a significant crowd.
Think of your own experience attending a political meeting. How would you react if you saw only the politician, with no music, no fanfare and a long, quiet discussion of complex policy? I am not suggesting that policy discussions should be avoided – they should be done more often – but I am asking you to consider how such a scene would shape your perception of the candidate’s chances and campaign.
To simplify further, imagine walking into a store with no customers. You might think it’s just bad timing. But if every time you pass by, the store is empty, you would likely conclude it is underwhelming and not worth trying. If it were good, people would be there. The same logic applies to crowd sizes in politics.
Behavioural Sciences Approach
One rationale for politicians’ obsession with crowd size lies in behavioural science. People naturally gravitate toward others, seek belonging and want to be part of a tribe, party, or grouping. Data suggests that people prefer to be close to groups they perceive as successful. At times, success is judged by the visible manifestation of crowd size at election rallies.
The logic goes: if so many people are present, the candidate must be doing something right, or even winning. This effect is particularly strong in smaller societies, where familiar faces in the crowd reinforce the perception of legitimacy.
Even if observers do not join the rallies themselves, the sight of large gatherings can capture their attention and nudge them toward supporting that candidate or party. In this way, crowd size functions not only as a measure for participants and opponents but also as a signal to outsiders.
This is the classic “bandwagon effect”: people look to others’ behaviour to infer what is correct, valid and popular. A visibly large crowd signals broad support, even if individuals are not consciously aware of why they follow majority behaviour.
Crowds also serve internal purposes. They provide in-group reinforcement, emotional validation and social cohesion, which can boost momentum and enthusiasm among supporters. Conversely, when a party has little visible support, it can create the impression that something is lacking and discourage others from joining.
Third parties often struggle not only because of limited financing but also because they fail to generate popular buy-in, as evidenced by sparse public gatherings.
Imagine a carnival with no people; only the MC, and not even a DJ. The perception would be bleak. In politics, perception shapes reality, and many believe perception is as good as reality. Crowd size can therefore influence endorsements, donor financing, and mobilisation support.
Behavioural economists note that people are drawn to information that is vivid, emotional, and easy to recall. A big rally is more dramatic and memorable than polling averages or demographic models. The danger, however, lies in generalising from a crowd to an entire electorate. Former Jamaican Prime Minister Michael Manley famously misjudged this when he declared before his defeat, “150,000 strong can never be wrong.” They were.
For these reasons, politicians fixate on crowd sizes as markers of success and talking points. Large gatherings provide a tangible assessment of their following and a tool for maximising support on Election Day. They help measure mobilisation efforts. Yet, used in isolation, crowd size can be misleading and even detrimental.
Ultimately, crowd sizes do matter, but their significance depends on how you focus on their role in politics. While the ballot box decides the outcome, many steps must be taken to get there, and perception is one of them. Crowd size shapes perception, and sometimes perception is as powerful as reality itself.
