Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-zvgck Total loading time: 0.397 Render date: 2021-06-19T13:56:21.587Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

ANDREW REHFELD
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

The trustee/delegate problem purportedly expresses how closely a representative's votes in the legislature should correspond to their constituents' preferences. In this article, I argue that the usual formulation of this debate collapses three distinctions—aims, source of judgment, and responsiveness—and thus obscures the underlying complexity of the phenomenon. Given its tripartite formulation, the collapse of these distinctions into a binary “trustee/delegate” formulation obscures a more complex political landscape with eight—rather than two—ideal types. Furthermore, once unpacked, we can see that the distinctions operate entirely independent of the location of authority, leading to the seemingly paradoxical instructed trustees and independent delegates. I also claim that the three distinctions apply to any decision maker, and thus, the attribution of this problem as distinctive of democratic political representation is an important overstatement. The article thus contributes to a more general theory of political representation that can be applied in nonelectoral and nondemocratic contexts increasingly relevant to global politics.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Amy, Douglass. 1993. Real Voices New Choices. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ankersmit, F. R. 2002. Political Representation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Applebaum, Arthur Isak. 1999. Ethics for Adversaries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beerbohm, Eric. 2007. Democratic Complicity. Ph.D. diss. Department of Politics, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Brunell, Thomas L. 2006. “Rethinking Redistricting: How Drawing Uncompetitive Districts Eliminates Gerrymanders, Enhances Representation, and Improves Attitudes Toward Congress.” PS: Political Science & Politics 39 (January): 7785.Google Scholar
Brunell, Thomas L. 2008. Redistricting and Representation: Why Conpetitive Elections Are Bad for America. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1774. “Speech to the Electors of Bristol.” In Works, New York: Harpers. 446–8.Google Scholar
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1999. Cicero: On the Commonwealth and On the Laws (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought), ed. Zetzel, James E. G.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dovi, Suzanne. 2007. The Good Representative. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Elkin, Stephen. 2006. Reconstructing the Commercial Republic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, David M. 2008. Democratic Authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fasolt, Constantin. 1991. “Quod Omnes Tangit Ab Omnibus Approbari Debet: The Words and the Meaning.” In In Iure Veritas: Studies in Canon Law in Memory of Schafer Williams, eds. Bowman, Steven and Cody, Blanche. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati College of Law.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1999. “Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance.” In Democracy, Accountability and Representation. eds. Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan C., and Manin, Bernard. Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1994. “Enhancing Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting.” American Political Science Review 88 (September): 541–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2006. Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guinier, Lani. 1994. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961. The Concept of Law. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan L. 2009. “Who Loses in American Democracy? A Count of Votes Demonstrates the Limited Representation of African Americans.” American Political Science Review 103 (1): 3758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenyon, Cecilia ed. 1966. The Anti-Federalists. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Kurland, Philip B., and Lerner, Ralph, eds. 1987. The Founders Constitution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. [1690] 1988. “Second Treatise of Government.” In Two Treatises of Government. ed. Laslett, Peter. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovett, Francis. 2004. “Can Justice Be Based on Consent.” Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (March): 79101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lublin, David. 1997. The Paradox of Representation. Prrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Peter. 2006. “Ruling the Void? The Hollowing of Western Democracy.” New Left Review (Nov/Dec): 2551.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane N.d. “A ‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation.” Journal of Political Philosophy. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 1997. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Claredon Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan C., and Manin, Bernard, eds. 1999. Democracy, Accountability and Representation. Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hillary. 2002. The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rakove, Jack. 1996. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1979. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2003. “Review of Ankersmit, F. R., Political Representation. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002).” Ethics (July): 865–8.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2005. The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy and Institutional Design. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2006. “Toward a General Theory of Political Representation.” The Journal of Politics 68 (February): 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009a. Political Representation: An Explanatory Account. Manuscript. Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009b. “On Quotas and Qualifications for Office.” In Political Representation and Democratic Self Rule, eds. Shapiro, Ian, Stokes, Susan, and Wood, Elisabeth. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richie, Robert, and Steven, Hill. 1999. Relecting All of Us: The Case for proportional Representation. eds. Cohen, Joshua and Rogers, Joel. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. [1762] 1978. On the Social Contract. ed. Masters, Roger D.. Trans. Masters, Judith R.. New York: St. Mary's.Google Scholar
Sabl, Andrew. 2002. Ruling Passions: Political Offices and Democratic Ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2005. “Gross Concepts in Political Argument.” In The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 152–77.Google Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 1979. Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1993. The Partial Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis. 2005. Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business, and Health Care. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Truman, David. 1953. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2008. Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Vermeule, Adrian. 2007. Mechanisms of Democracy: Institutional Design Writ Small. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Melissa. 1999. Voice, Trust, Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Democracy and Inclusion. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
113
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Representation Rethought: On Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation and Democracy
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *