define representation in politics

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Political Representation

The concept of political representation is misleadingly simple: everyone seems to know what it is, yet few can agree on any particular definition. In fact, there is an extensive literature that offers many different definitions of this elusive concept. [Classic treatments of the concept of political representations within this literature include Pennock and Chapman 1968; Pitkin, 1967 and Schwartz, 1988.] Hanna Pitkin (1967) provides, perhaps, one of the most straightforward definitions: to represent is simply to “make present again.” On this definition, political representation is the activity of making citizens’ voices, opinions, and perspectives “present” in public policy making processes. Political representation occurs when political actors speak, advocate, symbolize, and act on the behalf of others in the political arena. In short, political representation is a kind of political assistance. This seemingly straightforward definition, however, is not adequate as it stands. For it leaves the concept of political representation underspecified. Indeed, as we will see, the concept of political representation has multiple and competing dimensions: our common understanding of political representation is one that contains different, and conflicting, conceptions of how political representatives should represent and so holds representatives to standards that are mutually incompatible. In leaving these dimensions underspecified, this definition fails to capture this paradoxical character of the concept.

This encyclopedia entry has three main goals. The first is to provide a general overview of the meaning of political representation, identifying the key components of this concept. The second is to highlight several important advances that have been made by the contemporary literature on political representation. These advances point to new forms of political representation, ones that are not limited to the relationship between formal representatives and their constituents. The third goal is to reveal several persistent problems with theories of political representation and thereby to propose some future areas of research.

1.1 Delegate vs. Trustee

1.2 pitkin’s four views of representation, 2. changing political realities and changing concepts of political representation, 3. contemporary advances, 4. future areas of study, a. general discussions of representation, b. arguments against representation, c. non-electoral forms of representation, d. representation and electoral design, e. representation and accountability, f. descriptive representation, other internet resources, related entries, 1. key components of political representation.

Political representation, on almost any account, will exhibit the following five components:

• some party that is representing (the representative, an organization, movement, state agency, etc.);
• some party that is being represented (the constituents, the clients, etc.);
• something that is being represented (opinions, perspectives, interests, discourses, etc.); and
• a setting within which the activity of representation is taking place (the political context).
• something that is being left out (the opinions, interests, and perspectives not voiced).

Theories of political representation often begin by specifying the terms for the first four components. For instance, democratic theorists often limit the types of representatives being discussed to formal representatives — that is, to representatives who hold elected offices. One reason that the concept of representation remains elusive is that theories of representation often apply only to particular kinds of political actors within a particular context. How individuals represent an electoral district is treated as distinct from how social movements, judicial bodies, or informal organizations represent. Consequently, it is unclear how different forms of representation relate to each other. Andrew Rehfeld (2006) has offered a general theory of representation which simply identifies representation by reference to a relevant audience accepting a person as its representative. One consequence of Rehfeld’s general approach to representation is that it allows for undemocratic cases of representation.

However, Rehfeld’s general theory of representation does not specify what representative do or should do in order to be recognized as a representative. And what exactly representatives do has been a hotly contested issue. In particular, a controversy has raged over whether representatives should act as delegates or trustees .

Historically, the theoretical literature on political representation has focused on whether representatives should act as delegates or as trustees . Representatives who are delegates simply follow the expressed preferences of their constituents. James Madison (1787–8) describes representative government as “the delegation of the government...to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” Madison recognized that “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” Consequently, Madison suggests having a diverse and large population as a way to decrease the problems with bad representation. In other words, the preferences of the represented can partially safeguard against the problems of faction.

In contrast, trustees are representatives who follow their own understanding of the best action to pursue. Edmund Burke (1790) is famous for arguing that

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interest each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole… You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament (115).

The delegate and the trustee conception of political representation place competing and contradictory demands on the behavior of representatives. [For a discussion of the similarities and differences between Madison’s and Burke’s conception of representation, see Pitkin 1967, 191–192.] Delegate conceptions of representation require representatives to follow their constituents’ preferences, while trustee conceptions require representatives to follow their own judgment about the proper course of action. Any adequate theory of representation must grapple with these contradictory demands.

Famously, Hanna Pitkin argues that theorists should not try to reconcile the paradoxical nature of the concept of representation. Rather, they should aim to preserve this paradox by recommending that citizens safeguard the autonomy of both the representative and of those being represented. The autonomy of the representative is preserved by allowing them to make decisions based on his or her understanding of the represented’s interests (the trustee conception of representation). The autonomy of those being represented is preserved by having the preferences of the represented influence evaluations of representatives (the delegate conception of representation). Representatives must act in ways that safeguard the capacity of the represented to authorize and to hold their representatives accountable and uphold the capacity of the representative to act independently of the wishes of the represented.

Objective interests are the key for determining whether the autonomy of representative and the autonomy of the represented have been breached. However, Pitkin never adequately specifies how we are to identify constituents’ objective interests. At points, she implies that constituents should have some say in what are their objective interests, but ultimately she merely shifts her focus away from this paradox to the recommendation that representatives should be evaluated on the basis of the reasons they give for disobeying the preferences of their constituents. For Pitkin, assessments about representatives will depend on the issue at hand and the political environment in which a representative acts. To understand the multiple and conflicting standards within the concept of representation is to reveal the futility of holding all representatives to some fixed set of guidelines. In this way, Pitkin concludes that standards for evaluating representatives defy generalizations. Moreover, individuals, especially democratic citizens, are likely to disagree deeply about what representatives should be doing.

Pitkin offers one of the most comprehensive discussions of the concept of political representation, attending to its contradictory character in her The Concept of Representation . This classic discussion of the concept of representation is one of the most influential and oft-cited works in the literature on political representation. (For a discussion of her influence, see Dovi 2016). Adopting a Wittgensteinian approach to language, Pitkin maintains that in order to understand the concept of political representation, one must consider the different ways in which the term is used. Each of these different uses of the term provides a different view of the concept. Pitkin compares the concept of representation to “ a rather complicated, convoluted, three–dimensional structure in the middle of a dark enclosure.” Political theorists provide “flash-bulb photographs of the structure taken from different angles” [1967, 10]. More specifically, political theorists have provided four main views of the concept of representation. Unfortunately, Pitkin never explains how these different views of political representation fit together. At times, she implies that the concept of representation is unified. At other times, she emphasizes the conflicts between these different views, e.g. how descriptive representation is opposed to accountability. Drawing on her flash-bulb metaphor, Pitkin argues that one must know the context in which the concept of representation is placed in order to determine its meaning. For Pitkin, the contemporary usage of the term “representation” can signficantly change its meaning.

For Pitkin, disagreements about representation can be partially reconciled by clarifying which view of representation is being invoked. Pitkin identifies at least four different views of representation: formalistic representation, descriptive representation, symbolic representation, and substantive representation. (For a brief description of each of these views, see chart below.) Each view provides a different approach for examining representation. The different views of representation can also provide different standards for assessing representatives. So disagreements about what representatives ought to be doing are aggravated by the fact that people adopt the wrong view of representation or misapply the standards of representation. Pitkin has in many ways set the terms of contemporary discussions about representation by providing this schematic overview of the concept of political representation.

1. Formalistic Representation : Brief Description . The institutional arrangements that precede and initiate representation. Formal representation has two dimensions: authorization and accountability. Main Research Question . What is the institutional position of a representative? Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . None. ( Authorization ): Brief Description . The means by which a representative obtains his or her standing, status, position or office. Main Research Questions . What is the process by which a representative gains power (e.g., elections) and what are the ways in which a representative can enforce his or her decisions? Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . No standards for assessing how well a representative behaves. One can merely assess whether a representative legitimately holds his or her position. pdf include--> ( Accountability ): Brief Description . The ability of constituents to punish their representative for failing to act in accordance with their wishes (e.g. voting an elected official out of office) or the responsiveness of the representative to the constituents. Main Research Question . What are the sanctioning mechanisms available to constituents? Is the representative responsive towards his or her constituents’ preferences? Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . No standards for assessing how well a representative behaves. One can merely determine whether a representative can be sanctioned or has been responsive.

Brief Description . The ways that a representative “stands for” the represented — that is, the meaning that a representative has for those being represented.

Main Research Question . What kind of response is invoked by the representative in those being represented?

Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . Representatives are assessed by the degree of acceptance that the representative has among the represented.

Brief Description . The extent to which a representative resembles those being represented.

Main Research Question . Does the representative look like, have common interests with, or share certain experiences with the represented?

Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . Assess the representative by the accuracy of the resemblance between the representative and the represented.

Brief Description . The activity of representatives—that is, the actions taken on behalf of, in the interest of, as an agent of, and as a substitute for the represented.

Main Research Question . Does the representative advance the policy preferences that serve the interests of the represented?

Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . Assess a representative by the extent to which policy outcomes advanced by a representative serve “the best interests” of their constituents.

One cannot overestimate the extent to which Pitkin has shaped contemporary understandings of political representation, especially among political scientists. For example, her claim that descriptive representation opposes accountability is often the starting point for contemporary discussions about whether marginalized groups need representatives from their groups.

Similarly, Pitkin’s conclusions about the paradoxical nature of political representation support the tendency among contemporary theorists and political scientists to focus on formal procedures of authorization and accountability (formalistic representation). In particular, there has been a lot of theoretical attention paid to the proper design of representative institutions (e.g. Amy 1996; Barber, 2001; Christiano 1996; Guinier 1994). This focus is certainly understandable, since one way to resolve the disputes about what representatives should be doing is to “let the people decide.” In other words, establishing fair procedures for reconciling conflicts provides democratic citizens one way to settle conflicts about the proper behavior of representatives. In this way, theoretical discussions of political representation tend to depict political representation as primarily a principal-agent relationship. The emphasis on elections also explains why discussions about the concept of political representation frequently collapse into discussions of democracy. Political representation is understood as a way of 1) establishing the legitimacy of democratic institutions and 2) creating institutional incentives for governments to be responsive to citizens.

David Plotke (1997) has noted that this emphasis on mechanisms of authorization and accountability was especially useful in the context of the Cold War. For this understanding of political representation (specifically, its demarcation from participatory democracy) was useful for distinguishing Western democracies from Communist countries. Those political systems that held competitive elections were considered to be democratic (Schumpeter 1976). Plotke questions whether such a distinction continues to be useful. Plotke recommends that we broaden the scope of our understanding of political representation to encompass interest representation and thereby return to debating what is the proper activity of representatives. Plotke’s insight into why traditional understandings of political representation resonated prior to the end of the Cold War suggests that modern understandings of political representation are to some extent contingent on political realities. For this reason, those who attempt to define political representation should recognize how changing political realities can affect contemporary understandings of political representation. Again, following Pitkin, ideas about political representation appear contingent on existing political practices of representation. Our understandings of representation are inextricably shaped by the manner in which people are currently being represented. For an informative discussion of the history of representation, see Monica Brito Vieira and David Runican’s Representation .

As mentioned earlier, theoretical discussions of political representation have focused mainly on the formal procedures of authorization and accountability within nation states, that is, on what Pitkin called formalistic representation. However, such a focus is no longer satisfactory due to international and domestic political transformations. [For an extensive discussion of international and domestic transformations, see Mark Warren and Dario Castioglione (2004).] Increasingly international, transnational and non-governmental actors play an important role in advancing public policies on behalf of democratic citizens—that is, acting as representatives for those citizens. Such actors “speak for,” “act for” and can even “stand for” individuals within a nation-state. It is no longer desirable to limit one’s understanding of political representation to elected officials within the nation-state. After all, increasingly state “contract out” important responsibilities to non-state actors, e.g. environmental regulation. As a result, elected officials do not necessarily possess “the capacity to act,” the capacity that Pitkin uses to identify who is a representative. So, as the powers of nation-state have been disseminated to international and transnational actors, elected representatives are not necessarily the agents who determine how policies are implemented. Given these changes, the traditional focus of political representation, that is, on elections within nation-states, is insufficient for understanding how public policies are being made and implemented. The complexity of modern representative processes and the multiple locations of political power suggest that contemporary notions of accountability are inadequate. Grant and Keohane (2005) have recently updated notions of accountability, suggesting that the scope of political representation needs to be expanded in order to reflect contemporary realities in the international arena. Michael Saward (2009) has proposed an innovative type of criteria that should be used for evaluating non-elective representative claims. John Dryzek and Simon Niemayer (2008) has proposed an alternative conception of representation, what he calls discursive representation, to reflect the fact that transnational actors represent discourses, not real people. By discourses, they mean “a set of categories and concepts embodying specific assumptions, judgments, contentions, dispositions, and capabilities.” The concept of discursive representation can potentially redeem the promise of deliberative democracy when the deliberative participation of all affected by a collective decision is infeasible.

Domestic transformations also reveal the need to update contemporary understandings of political representation. Associational life — social movements, interest groups, and civic associations—is increasingly recognized as important for the survival of representative democracies. The extent to which interest groups write public policies or play a central role in implementing and regulating policies is the extent to which the division between formal and informal representation has been blurred. The fluid relationship between the career paths of formal and informal representatives also suggests that contemporary realities do not justify focusing mainly on formal representatives. Mark Warren’s concept of citizen representatives (2008) opens up a theoretical framework for exploring how citizens represent themselves and serve in representative capacities.

Given these changes, it is necessary to revisit our conceptual understanding of political representation, specifically of democratic representation. For as Jane Mansbridge has recently noted, normative understandings of representation have not kept up with recent empirical research and contemporary democratic practices. In her important article “Rethinking Representation” Mansbridge identifies four forms of representation in modern democracies: promissory, anticipatory, gyroscopic and surrogacy. Promissory representation is a form of representation in which representatives are to be evaluated by the promises they make to constituents during campaigns. Promissory representation strongly resembles Pitkin’s discussion of formalistic representation. For both are primarily concerned with the ways that constituents give their consent to the authority of a representative. Drawing on recent empirical work, Mansbridge argues for the existence of three additional forms of representation. In anticipatory representation, representatives focus on what they think their constituents will reward in the next election and not on what they promised during the campaign of the previous election. Thus, anticipatory representation challenges those who understand accountability as primarily a retrospective activity. In gyroscopic representation, representatives “look within” to derive from their own experience conceptions of interest and principles to serve as a basis for their action. Finally, surrogate representation occurs when a legislator represents constituents outside of their districts. For Mansbridge, each of these different forms of representation generates a different normative criterion by which representatives should be assessed. All four forms of representation, then, are ways that democratic citizens can be legitimately represented within a democratic regime. Yet none of the latter three forms representation operates through the formal mechanisms of authorization and accountability. Recently, Mansbridge (2009) has gone further by suggesting that political science has focused too much on the sanctions model of accountability and that another model, what she calls the selection model, can be more effective at soliciting the desired behavior from representatives. According to Mansbridge, a sanction model of accountability presumes that the representative has different interests from the represented and that the represented should not only monitor but reward the good representative and punish the bad. In contrast, the selection model of accountability presumes that representatives have self-motivated and exogenous reasons for carrying out the represented’s wishes. In this way, Mansbridge broadens our understanding of accountability to allow for good representation to occur outside of formal sanctioning mechanisms.

Mansbridge’s rethinking of the meaning of representation holds an important insight for contemporary discussions of democratic representation. By specifying the different forms of representation within a democratic polity, Mansbridge teaches us that we should refer to the multiple forms of democratic representation. Democratic representation should not be conceived as a monolithic concept. Moreover, what is abundantly clear is that democratic representation should no longer be treated as consisting simply in a relationship between elected officials and constituents within her voting district. Political representation should no longer be understood as a simple principal-agent relationship. Andrew Rehfeld has gone farther, maintaining that political representation should no longer be territorially based. In other words, Rehfeld (2005) argues that constituencies, e.g. electoral districts, should not be constructed based on where citizens live.

Lisa Disch (2011) also complicates our understanding of democratic representation as a principal-agent relationship by uncovering a dilemma that arises between expectations of democratic responsiveness to constituents and recent empirical findings regarding the context dependency of individual constituents’ preferences. In response to this dilemma, Disch proposes a mobilization conception of political representation and develops a systemic understanding of reflexivity as the measure of its legitimacy.

By far, one of the most important shifts in the literature on representation has been the “constructivist turn.” Constructivist approaches to representation emphasize the representative’s role in creating and framing the identities and claims of the represented. Here Michael Saward’s The Representative Claim is exemplary. For Saward, representation entails a series of relationships: “A maker of representations (M) puts forward a subject (S) which stands for an object (O) which is related to a referent (R) and is offered to an audience (A)” (2006, 302). Instead of presuming a pre-existing set of interests of the represented that representatives “bring into” the political arena, Saward stresses how representative claim-making is a “deeply culturally inflected practice.” Saward explicitly denies that theorists can know what are the interests of the represented. For this reason, the represented should have the ultimate say in judging the claims of the representative. The task of the representative is to create claims that will resonate with appropriate audiences.

Saward therefore does not evaluate representatives by the extent to which they advance the preferences or interests of the represented. Instead he focuses on the institutional and collective conditions in which claim-making takes place. The constructivist turn examines the conditions for claim-making, not the activities of particular representatives.

Saward’s “constructivist turn” has generated a new research direction for both political theorists and empirical scientists. For example, Lisa Disch (2015) considers whether the constructivist turn is a “normative dead” end, that is, whether the epistemological commitments of constructivism that deny the ability to identify interests will undermine the normative commitments to democratic politics. Disch offers an alternative approach, what she calls “the citizen standpoint”. This standpoint does not mean taking at face value whomever or whatever citizens regard as representing them. Rather, it is “an epistemological and political achievement that does not exist spontaneously but develops out of the activism of political movements together with the critical theories and transformative empirical research to which they give rise” (2015, 493). (For other critical engagements with Saward’s work, see Schaap et al, 2012 and Nässtrom, 2011).

There have been a number of important advances in theorizing the concept of political representation. In particular, these advances call into question the traditional way of thinking of political representation as a principal-agent relationship. Most notably, Melissa Williams’ recent work has recommended reenvisioning the activity of representation in light of the experiences of historically disadvantaged groups. In particular, she recommends understanding representation as “mediation.” In particular, Williams (1998, 8) identifies three different dimensions of political life that representatives must “mediate:” the dynamics of legislative decision-making, the nature of legislator-constituent relations, and the basis for aggregating citizens into representable constituencies. She explains each aspect by using a corresponding theme (voice, trust, and memory) and by drawing on the experiences of marginalized groups in the United States. For example, drawing on the experiences of American women trying to gain equal citizenship, Williams argues that historically disadvantaged groups need a “voice” in legislative decision-making. The “heavily deliberative” quality of legislative institutions requires the presence of individuals who have direct access to historically excluded perspectives.

In addition, Williams explains how representatives need to mediate the representative-constituent relationship in order to build “trust.” For Williams, trust is the cornerstone for democratic accountability. Relying on the experiences of African-Americans, Williams shows the consistent patterns of betrayal of African-Americans by privileged white citizens that give them good reason for distrusting white representatives and the institutions themselves. For Williams, relationships of distrust can be “at least partially mended if the disadvantaged group is represented by its own members”(1998, 14). Finally, representation involves mediating how groups are defined. The boundaries of groups according to Williams are partially established by past experiences — what Williams calls “memory.” Having certain shared patterns of marginalization justifies certain institutional mechanisms to guarantee presence.

Williams offers her understanding of representation as mediation as a supplement to what she regards as the traditional conception of liberal representation. Williams identifies two strands in liberal representation. The first strand she describes as the “ideal of fair representation as an outcome of free and open elections in which every citizen has an equally weighted vote” (1998, 57). The second strand is interest-group pluralism, which Williams describes as the “theory of the organization of shared social interests with the purpose of securing the equitable representation … of those groups in public policies” ( ibid .). Together, the two strands provide a coherent approach for achieving fair representation, but the traditional conception of liberal representation as made up of simply these two strands is inadequate. In particular, Williams criticizes the traditional conception of liberal representation for failing to take into account the injustices experienced by marginalized groups in the United States. Thus, Williams expands accounts of political representation beyond the question of institutional design and thus, in effect, challenges those who understand representation as simply a matter of formal procedures of authorization and accountability.

Another way of reenvisioning representation was offered by Nadia Urbinati (2000, 2002). Urbinati argues for understanding representation as advocacy. For Urbinati, the point of representation should not be the aggregation of interests, but the preservation of disagreements necessary for preserving liberty. Urbinati identifies two main features of advocacy: 1) the representative’s passionate link to the electors’ cause and 2) the representative’s relative autonomy of judgment. Urbinati emphasizes the importance of the former for motivating representatives to deliberate with each other and their constituents. For Urbinati the benefit of conceptualizing representation as advocacy is that it improves our understanding of deliberative democracy. In particular, it avoids a common mistake made by many contemporary deliberative democrats: focusing on the formal procedures of deliberation at the expense of examining the sources of inequality within civil society, e.g. the family. One benefit of Urbinati’s understanding of representation is its emphasis on the importance of opinion and consent formation. In particular, her agonistic conception of representation highlights the importance of disagreements and rhetoric to the procedures, practices, and ethos of democracy. Her account expands the scope of theoretical discussions of representation away from formal procedures of authorization to the deliberative and expressive dimensions of representative institutions. In this way, her agonistic understanding of representation provides a theoretical tool to those who wish to explain how non-state actors “represent.”

Other conceptual advancements have helped clarify the meaning of particular aspects of representation. For instance, Andrew Rehfeld (2009) has argued that we need to disaggregate the delegate/trustee distinction. Rehfeld highlights how representatives can be delegates and trustees in at least three different ways. For this reason, we should replace the traditional delegate/trustee distinction with three distinctions (aims, source of judgment, and responsiveness). By collapsing these three different ways of being delegates and trustees, political theorists and political scientists overlook the ways in which representatives are often partial delegates and partial trustees.

Other political theorists have asked us to rethink central aspects of our understanding of democratic representation. In Inclusion and Democracy Iris Marion Young asks us to rethink the importance of descriptive representation. Young stresses that attempts to include more voices in the political arena can suppress other voices. She illustrates this point using the example of a Latino representative who might inadvertently represent straight Latinos at the expense of gay and lesbian Latinos (1986, 350). For Young, the suppression of differences is a problem for all representation (1986, 351). Representatives of large districts or of small communities must negotiate the difficulty of one person representing many. Because such a difficulty is constitutive of representation, it is unreasonable to assume that representation should be characterized by a “relationship of identity.” The legitimacy of a representative is not primarily a function of his or her similarities to the represented. For Young, the representative should not be treated as a substitute for the represented. Consequently, Young recommends reconceptualizing representation as a differentiated relationship (2000, 125–127; 1986, 357). There are two main benefits of Young’s understanding of representation. First, her understanding of representation encourages us to recognize the diversity of those being represented. Second, her analysis of representation emphasizes the importance of recognizing how representative institutions include as well as they exclude. Democratic citizens need to remain vigilant about the ways in which providing representation for some groups comes at the expense of excluding others. Building on Young’s insight, Suzanne Dovi (2009) has argued that we should not conceptualize representation simply in terms of how we bring marginalized groups into democratic politics; rather, democratic representation can require limiting the influence of overrepresented privileged groups.

Moreover, based on this way of understanding political representation, Young provides an alterative account of democratic representation. Specifically, she envisions democratic representation as a dynamic process, one that moves between moments of authorization and moments of accountability (2000, 129). It is the movement between these moments that makes the process “democratic.” This fluidity allows citizens to authorize their representatives and for traces of that authorization to be evident in what the representatives do and how representatives are held accountable. The appropriateness of any given representative is therefore partially dependent on future behavior as well as on his or her past relationships. For this reason, Young maintains that evaluation of this process must be continuously “deferred.” We must assess representation dynamically, that is, assess the whole ongoing processes of authorization and accountability of representatives. Young’s discussion of the dynamic of representation emphasizes the ways in which evaluations of representatives are incomplete, needing to incorporate the extent to which democratic citizens need to suspend their evaluations of representatives and the extent to which representatives can face unanticipated issues.

Another insight about democratic representation that comes from the literature on descriptive representation is the importance of contingencies. Here the work of Jane Mansbridge on descriptive representation has been particularly influential. Mansbridge recommends that we evaluate descriptive representatives by contexts and certain functions. More specifically, Mansbridge (1999, 628) focuses on four functions and their related contexts in which disadvantaged groups would want to be represented by someone who belongs to their group. Those four functions are “(1) adequate communication in contexts of mistrust, (2) innovative thinking in contexts of uncrystallized, not fully articulated, interests, … (3) creating a social meaning of ‘ability to rule’ for members of a group in historical contexts where the ability has been seriously questioned and (4) increasing the polity’s de facto legitimacy in contexts of past discrimination.” For Mansbridge, descriptive representatives are needed when marginalized groups distrust members of relatively more privileged groups and when marginalized groups possess political preferences that have not been fully formed. The need for descriptive representation is contingent on certain functions.

Mansbridge’s insight about the contingency of descriptive representation suggests that at some point descriptive representatives might not be necessary. However, she doesn’t specify how we are to know if interests have become crystallized or trust has formed to the point that the need for descriptive representation would be obsolete. Thus, Mansbridge’s discussion of descriptive representation suggests that standards for evaluating representatives are fluid and flexible. For an interesting discussion of the problems with unified or fixed standards for evaluating Latino representatives, see Christina Beltran’s The Trouble with Unity .

Mansbridge’s discussion of descriptive representation points to another trend within the literature on political representation — namely, the trend to derive normative accounts of representation from the representative’s function. Russell Hardin (2004) captured this trend most clearly in his position that “if we wish to assess the morality of elected officials, we must understand their function as our representatives and then infer how they can fulfill this function.” For Hardin, only an empirical explanation of the role of a representative is necessary for determining what a representative should be doing. Following Hardin, Suzanne Dovi (2007) identifies three democratic standards for evaluating the performance of representatives: those of fair-mindedness, critical trust building, and good gate-keeping. In Ruling Passions , Andrew Sabl (2002) links the proper behavior of representatives to their particular office. In particular, Sabl focuses on three offices: senator, organizer and activist. He argues that the same standards should not be used to evaluate these different offices. Rather, each office is responsible for promoting democratic constancy, what Sabl understands as “the effective pursuit of interest.” Sabl (2002) and Hardin (2004) exemplify the trend to tie the standards for evaluating political representatives to the activity and office of those representatives.

There are three persistent problems associated with political representation. Each of these problems identifies a future area of investigation. The first problem is the proper institutional design for representative institutions within democratic polities. The theoretical literature on political representation has paid a lot of attention to the institutional design of democracies. More specifically, political theorists have recommended everything from proportional representation (e.g. Guinier, 1994 and Christiano, 1996) to citizen juries (Fishkin, 1995). However, with the growing number of democratic states, we are likely to witness more variation among the different forms of political representation. In particular, it is important to be aware of how non-democratic and hybrid regimes can adopt representative institutions to consolidate their power over their citizens. There is likely to be much debate about the advantages and disadvantages of adopting representative institutions.

This leads to a second future line of inquiry — ways in which democratic citizens can be marginalized by representative institutions. This problem is articulated most clearly by Young’s discussion of the difficulties arising from one person representing many. Young suggests that representative institutions can include the opinions, perspectives and interests of some citizens at the expense of marginalizing the opinions, perspectives and interests of others. Hence, a problem with institutional reforms aimed at increasing the representation of historically disadvantaged groups is that such reforms can and often do decrease the responsiveness of representatives. For instance, the creation of black districts has created safe zones for black elected officials so that they are less accountable to their constituents. Any decrease in accountability is especially worrisome given the ways citizens are vulnerable to their representatives. Thus, one future line of research is examining the ways that representative institutions marginalize the interests, opinions and perspectives of democratic citizens.

In particular, it is necessary for to acknowledge the biases of representative institutions. While E. E. Schattschneider (1960) has long noted the class bias of representative institutions, there is little discussion of how to improve the political representation of the disaffected — that is, the political representation of those citizens who do not have the will, the time, or political resources to participate in politics. The absence of such a discussion is particularly apparent in the literature on descriptive representation, the area that is most concerned with disadvantaged citizens. Anne Phillips (1995) raises the problems with the representation of the poor, e.g. the inability to define class, however, she argues for issues of class to be integrated into a politics of presence. Few theorists have taken up Phillip’s gauntlet and articulated how this integration of class and a politics of presence is to be done. Of course, some have recognized the ways in which interest groups, associations, and individual representatives can betray the least well off (e.g. Strolovitch, 2004). And some (Dovi, 2003) have argued that descriptive representatives need to be selected based on their relationship to citizens who have been unjustly excluded and marginalized by democratic politics. However, it is unclear how to counteract the class bias that pervades domestic and international representative institutions. It is necessary to specify the conditions under which certain groups within a democratic polity require enhanced representation. Recent empirical literature has suggested that the benefits of having descriptive representatives is by no means straightforward (Gay, 2002).

A third and final area of research involves the relationship between representation and democracy. Historically, representation was considered to be in opposition with democracy [See Dahl (1989) for a historical overview of the concept of representation]. When compared to the direct forms of democracy found in the ancient city-states, notably Athens, representative institutions appear to be poor substitutes for the ways that citizens actively ruled themselves. Barber (1984) has famously argued that representative institutions were opposed to strong democracy. In contrast, almost everyone now agrees that democratic political institutions are representative ones.

Bernard Manin (1997)reminds us that the Athenian Assembly, which often exemplifies direct forms of democracy, had only limited powers. According to Manin, the practice of selecting magistrates by lottery is what separates representative democracies from so-called direct democracies. Consequently, Manin argues that the methods of selecting public officials are crucial to understanding what makes representative governments democratic. He identifies four principles distinctive of representative government: 1) Those who govern are appointed by election at regular intervals; 2) The decision-making of those who govern retains a degree of independence from the wishes of the electorate; 3) Those who are governed may give expression to their opinions and political wishes without these being subject to the control of those who govern; and 4) Public decisions undergo the trial of debate (6). For Manin, historical democratic practices hold important lessons for determining whether representative institutions are democratic.

While it is clear that representative institutions are vital institutional components of democratic institutions, much more needs to be said about the meaning of democratic representation. In particular, it is important not to presume that all acts of representation are equally democratic. After all, not all acts of representation within a representative democracy are necessarily instances of democratic representation. Henry Richardson (2002) has explored the undemocratic ways that members of the bureaucracy can represent citizens. [For a more detailed discussion of non-democratic forms of representation, see Apter (1968). Michael Saward (2008) also discusses how existing systems of political representation do not necessarily serve democracy.] Similarly, it is unclear whether a representative who actively seeks to dismantle democratic institutions is representing democratically. Does democratic representation require representatives to advance the preferences of democratic citizens or does it require a commitment to democratic institutions? At this point, answers to such questions are unclear. What is certain is that democratic citizens are likely to disagree about what constitutes democratic representation.

One popular approach to addressing the different and conflicting standards used to evaluate representatives within democratic polities, is to simply equate multiple standards with democratic ones. More specifically, it is argued that democratic standards are pluralistic, accommodating the different standards possessed and used by democratic citizens. Theorists who adopt this approach fail to specify the proper relationship among these standards. For instance, it is unclear how the standards that Mansbridge identifies in the four different forms of representation should relate to each other. Does it matter if promissory forms of representation are replaced by surrogate forms of representation? A similar omission can be found in Pitkin: although Pitkin specifies there is a unified relationship among the different views of representation, she never describes how the different views interact. This omission reflects the lacunae in the literature about how formalistic representation relates to descriptive and substantive representation. Without such a specification, it is not apparent how citizens can determine if they have adequate powers of authorization and accountability.

Currently, it is not clear exactly what makes any given form of representation consistent, let alone consonant, with democratic representation. Is it the synergy among different forms or should we examine descriptive representation in isolation to determine the ways that it can undermine or enhance democratic representation? One tendency is to equate democratic representation simply with the existence of fluid and multiple standards. While it is true that the fact of pluralism provides justification for democratic institutions as Christiano (1996) has argued, it should no longer presumed that all forms of representation are democratic since the actions of representatives can be used to dissolve or weaken democratic institutions. The final research area is to articulate the relationship between different forms of representation and ways that these forms can undermine democratic representation.

• Andeweg, Rudy B., and Jacques J.A. Thomassen, 2005. “Modes of Political Representation: Toward a new typology,” Legislative Studies Quarterly , 30(4): 507–528.
• Ankersmit, Franklin Rudolph, 2002. Political Representation , Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Alcoff, Linda, 1991. “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique , Winter: 5–32.
• Alonso, Sonia, John Keane, and Wolfgang Merkel (eds.), 2011. The Future of Representative Democracy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Beitz, Charles, 1989. Political Equality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Chapter 6 is on ‘Representation’]
• Burke, Edmund, 1790 [1968]. Reflections on the Revolution in France , London: Penguin Books.
• Dahl, Robert A., 1989. Democracy and Its Critics , New Haven: Yale University.
• Disch, Lisa, 2015. “The Constructivist Turn in Democratic Representation: A Normative Dead-End?,” Constellations , 22(4): 487–499.
• Dovi, Suzanne, 2007. The Good Representative , New York: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
• Downs, Anthony, 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy , New York: Harper.
• Dryzek, John and Simon Niemeyer, 2008. “Discursive Representation,” American Political Science Review , 102(4): 481–493.
• Hardin, Russell, 2004. “Representing Ignorance,” Social Philosophy and Policy , 21: 76–99.
• Lublin, David, 1999. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, 1787–8 [1987]. The Federalist Papers , Isaac Kramnick (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Mansbridge, Jane, 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review , 97(4): 515–28.
• Manin, Bernard, 1997. The Principles of Representative Government , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nässtrom, Sofia, 2011. “Where is the representative turn going?” European journal of political theory, , 10(4): 501–510.
• Pennock, J. Roland and John Chapman (eds.), 1968. Representation , New York: Atherton Press.
• Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, 1967. The Concept of Representation , Berkeley: University of California.
• Plotke, David, 1997. “Representation is Democracy,” Constellations , 4: 19–34.
• Rehfeld, Andrew, 2005. The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy and Institutional Design , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2006. “Towards a General Theory of Political Representation,” The Journal of Politics , 68: 1–21.
• Rosenstone, Steven and John Hansen, 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America , New York: MacMillian Publishing Company.
• Runciman, David, 2007. “The Paradox of Political Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 15: 93–114.
• Saward, Michael, 2014. “Shape-shifting representation”. American Political Science Review , 108(4): 723–736.
• –––, 2010. The Representative Claim , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2008. “Representation and democracy: revisions and possibilities,” Sociology compass , 2(3): 1000–1013.
• –––, 2006. “The representative claim”. Contemporary political theory , 5(3): 297–318.
• Sabl, Andrew, 2002. Ruling Passions: Political Offices and Democratic Ethics , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Schaap, Andrew, Thompson, Simon, Disch, Lisa, Castiglione, Dario and Saward, Michael, 2012. “Critical exchange on Michael Saward’s The Representative Claim,” Contemporary Political Theory , 11(1): 109–127.
• Schattschneider, E. E., 1960. The Semisovereign People , New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
• Schumpeter, Joseph, 1976. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy , London: Allen and Unwin.
• Schwartz, Nancy, 1988. The Blue Guitar: Political Representation and Community , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Shapiro, Ian, Susan C. Stokes, Elisabeth Jean Wood and Alexander S. Kirshner (eds.), 2009. Political Representation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Urbinati, Nadia, 2000. “Representation as Advocacy: A Study of Democratic Deliberation,” Political Theory , 28: 258–786.
• Urbinati, Nadia and Mark Warren, 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science , 11: 387–412
• Vieira, Monica and David Runciman, 2008. Representation , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Vieira, Monica (ed.), 2017. Reclaiming Representation: Contemporary Advances in the Theory of Political Representation , New York: Routledge Press.
• Warren, Mark and Dario Castiglione, 2004. “The Transformation of Democratic Representation,” Democracy and Society , 2(1): 5–22.
• Barber, Benjamin, 1984. Strong Democracy , Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
• Dryzek, John, 1996. “Political Inclusion and the Dynamics of Democratization,” American Political Science Review , 90 (September): 475–487.
• Pateman, Carole, 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 1762, The Social Contract , Judith Masters and Roger Masters (trans.), New York: St. Martins Press, 1978.
• Saward, Michael, 2008. “Representation and Democracy: Revisions and Possibilities,” Sociology Compass , 2: 1000–1013.
• Apter, David, 1968. “Notes for a Theory of Nondemocratic Representation,” in Nomos X , Chapter 19, pp. 278–317.
• Brown, Mark, 2006. “Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 14: 203–225.
• Cohen, Joshua and Joel Rogers, 1995. Associations and Democracy (The Real Utopias Project: Volume 1), Erik Olin Wright (ed.), London: Verso.
• Dalton, Russell J., and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds.), 2002. Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Montanaro, L., 2012. “The Democratic Legitimacy of Self-appointed Representatives,” The Journal of Politics , 74(4): 1094–1107.
• Ryden, David K., 1996. Representation in Crisis: The Constitution, Interest Groups, and Political Parties , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Truman, David, 1951. The Governmental Process , New York: Knopf.
• Saward, Michael, 2009. “ Authorisation and Authenticity: Representation and the Unelected,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 17: 1–22.
• Steunenberg, Bernard and J. J. A.Thomassen, 2002. The European Parliament : Moving Toward Democracy in the EU , Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Schmitter, Philippe, 2000. “Representation,” in How to democratize the European Union and Why Bother? , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, Ch. 3. pp. 53–74.
• Street, John, 2004. “Celebrity politicians: popular culture and political representation,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations , 6(4): 435–452.
• Strolovitch, Dara Z., 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics , Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Tormey, S., 2012. “Occupy Wall Street: From representation to post-representation,” Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies , 5: 132–137.
• Richardson, Henry, 2002. “Representative government,” in Democratic Autonomy , Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch. 14, pp. 193–202
• Runciman, David, 2010. “Hobbes’s Theory of Representation: anti-democratic or protodemoratic,” in Political Representation , Ian Shapiro, Susan C. Stokes, Elisabeth Jean Wood, and Alexander Kirshner (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Warren, Mark, 2001. Democracy and Association , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2008. “Citizen Representatives,” in Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British ColumbiaCitizens’ Assembly , Mark Warren and Hilary Pearse (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 50–69.
• Warren, Mark and Dario Castiglione, 2004. “The Transformation of Democratic Representation,” Democracy and Society , 2(I): 5, 20–22.
• Amy, Douglas, 1996. Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for Proportional Elections in the United States , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Barber, Kathleen, 2001. A Right to Representation: Proportional Election Systems for the 21 st Century , Columbia: Ohio University Press.
• Canon, David, 1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Christiano, Thomas, 1996. The Rule of the Many , Boulder: Westview Press.
• Cotta, Maurizio and Heinrich Best (eds.), 2007. Democratic Representation in Europe Diversity, Change, and Convergence , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Guinier, Lani, 1994. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy , New York: Free Press.
• Przworksi, Adam, Susan C. Stokes, and Bernard Manin (eds.), 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Thompson, Dennis, 2002. Just Elections , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Jacobs, Lawrence R. and Robert Y. Shapiro, 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Grant, Ruth and Robert O. Keohane, 2005. “Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics,” American Political Science Review , 99 (February): 29–44.
• Mansbridge, Jane, 2004. “Representation Revisited: Introduction to the Case Against Electoral Accountability,” Democracy and Society , 2(I): 12–13.
• –––, 2009. “A Selection Model of Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 17(4): 369–398.
• Pettit, Philip, 2010. “Representation, Responsive and Indicative,” Constellations , 17(3): 426–434.
• Fishkin, John, 1995. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Hibbing, John and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, 2002. Stealth Democracy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Saward, Michael (ed.), 2000. Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association , London: Routledge.
• Severs, E., 2010. “Representation As Claims-Making. Quid Responsiveness?” Representation , 46(4): 411–423.
• Williams, Melissa, 2000. “The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation and Deliberative Democracy,” in Citizenship in Diverse Societies , W. Kymlicka and Wayne Norman (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch 5. pp. 124–153.
• Young, Iris Marion, 1999. “Justice, Inclusion, and Deliberative Democracy” in Deliberative Politics , Stephen Macedo (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University.
• Bentran, Cristina, 2010. The Trouble with Unity: Latino Politics and the Creation of Identity , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Celis, Karen, Sarah Childs, Johanna Kantola and Mona Lena Krook, 2008, “Rethinking Women’s Substantive Representation,” Representation , 44(2): 99–110.
• Childs Sarah, 2008. Women and British Party Politics: Descriptive, Substantive and Symbolic Representation , London: Routledge.
• Dovi, Suzanne, 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Or Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?,” American Political Science Review , 96: 745–754.
• –––, 2007. “Theorizing Women’s Representation in the United States?,” Politics and Gender , 3(3): 297–319. doi: 10.1017/S1743923X07000281
• –––, 2009. “In Praise of Exclusion,” Journal of Politics , 71 (3): 1172–1186.
• –––, 2016. “Measuring Representation: Rethinking the Role of Exclusion” Political Representation , Marc Bühlmann and Jan Fivaz (eds.), London: Routledge.
• Fenno, Richard F., 2003. Going Home: Black Representatives and Their Constituents , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Gay, Claudine, 2002. “Spirals of Trust?,” American Journal of Political Science , 4: 717–32.
• Gould, Carol, 1996. “Diversity and Democracy: Representing Differences,” in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political , Seyla Benhabib (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University, pp. 171–186.
• Htun, Mala, 2004. “Is Gender like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groups,” Perspectives on Politics , 2: 439–458.
• Mansbridge, Jane, 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’,” The Journal of Politics , 61: 628–57.
• –––, 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review , 97: 515–528.
• Phillips, Anne, 1995. Politics of Presence , New York: Clarendon.
• –––, 1998. “Democracy and Representation: Or, Why Should It Matter Who Our Representatives Are?,” in Feminism and Politics , Oxford: Oxford University. pp. 224–240.
• Pitkin, Hanna, 1967. The Concept of Representation , Los Angeles: University of Press.
• Sapiro, Virginia, 1981. “When are Interests Interesting?,” American Political Science Review , 75 (September): 701–721.
• Strolovitch, Dara Z., 2004. “Affirmative Representation,” Democracy and Society , 2: 3–5.
• Swain, Carol M., 1993. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
• Thomas, Sue, 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies,” Journal of Politics , 53 (November): 958–976.
• –––, 1994. How Women Legislate , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Weldon, S. Laurel, 2002. “Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for Women in Democratic Policymaking,” Journal of Politics , 64(4): 1153–1174.
• Williams, Melissa, 1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
• Young, Iris Marion, 1986. “Deferring Group Representation,” Nomos: Group Rights , Will Kymlicka and Ian Shapiro (eds.), New York: New York University Press, pp. 349–376.
• –––, 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
• –––, 2000. Inclusion and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

G. Democratic Representation

• Castiglione, D., 2015. “Trajectories and Transformations of the Democratic Representative System”. Global Policy , 6(S1): 8–16.
• Disch, Lisa, 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation,” American Political Science Review , 105(1): 100–114.
• –––, 2012. “Democratic representation and the constituency paradox,” Perspectives on Politics , 10(3): 599–616.
• –––, 2016. “Hanna Pitkin, The Concept of Representation,” The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Contemporary Political Theory , Jacob Levy (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198717133.013.24
• Mansbridge, Jane, 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review , 97: 515–528.
• Näsström, Sofia, 2006. “Representative democracy as tautology: Ankersmit and Lefort on representation,” European Journal of Political Theory , 5(3): 321–342.
• Urbinati, Nadia, 2011. “Political Representation as Democratic Process,” Redescriptions (Yearbook of Political Thought and Conceptual History: Volume 10), Kari Palonen (ed.), Helsinki: Transaction Publishers.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• FairVote Program for Representative Government
• Proportional Representation Library , provides readings proportional representation elections created by Prof. Douglas J. Amy, Dept. of Politics, Mount Holyoke College
• Representation , an essay by Ann Marie Baldonado on the Postcolonial Studies website at Emory University.
• Representation: John Locke, Second Treatise, §§ 157–58 , in The Founders’ Constitution at the University of Chicago Press
• Popular Basis of Political Authority: David Hume, Of the Original Contract , in The Founders’ Constitution at the University of Chicago Press

Burke, Edmund | democracy

Copyright © 2018 by Suzanne Dovi < sdovi @ email . arizona . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Previous Chapter
• Next Chapter
• Download PDF

The concept of representation central in contemporary interpretations of democracy is in many ways dependent also from the juridical, artistic and religious languages, and the meanings it assumes in this field. This polysemic character has animated the history of political thought, where the concept of representation has been viewed in different and loosely related ways. An important turning point for the contemporary development of the scientific (and political) debate has been the formation of a consensus around the meaning of representation within the context of the neo-Schumpeterian view of democracy, in which the adjective representative referred to the influence of citizens’ opinion on policy-making. The seminal work of Hanna Pitkin shifted the focus on the substantive character of political representation conceived as acting in the interests of the represented. Both approaches were built around the concept of responsiveness, and coexisted as standard references for several decades. Around the end of the twentieth century the concept of representation and the related practices were object of a renewed attention both in response to the progress of the academic debate and as a consequence of the changing political reality.

Table of Contents

• [185.148.24.167]
• 185.148.24.167

Character limit 500 /500

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 11, 2008, review article, the concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory.

• Nadia Urbinati 1 , and Mark E. Warren 2
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6N 2H7, Canada; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 11:387-412 (Volume publication date June 2008) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190533
• © Annual Reviews

Democratic theorists have paid increasing attention to problems of political representation over the past two decades. Interest is driven by ( a ) a political landscape within which electoral representation now competes with new and informal kinds of representation; ( b ) interest in the fairness of electoral representation, particularly for minorities and women; ( c ) a renewed focus on political judgment within democratic theory; and ( d ) a new appreciation that participation and representation are complementary forms of citizenship. We review recent innovations within democratic theory, focusing especially on problems of fairness, constituency definition, deliberative political judgment, and new, nonelectoral forms of representation.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, framing theory, discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse, historical institutionalism in comparative politics, the origins and consequences of affective polarization in the united states, political trust and trustworthiness, public attitudes toward immigration, what have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research, what do we know about democratization after twenty years, economic determinants of electoral outcomes, public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature.

Publication Date: 15 Jun 2008

Online Option

Sign in to access your institutional or personal subscription or get immediate access to your online copy - available in PDF and ePub formats

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History

Political Science

• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Mechanisms of Representation

Introduction, introductory works.

• General Overviews
• Literature Reviews
• Public Policy and Executive Governance
• Democracy, Public Opinion, and Electoral Behavior
• Interest Groups and the Governmental Process
• Agenda Setting and Policy Change
• Politics of Attention and Information
• Institutions and Representation
• Political Parties and Public Policy
• Elections as Instruments of Democracy
• Dyadic Representation
• Dynamic Representation
• Performance Politics
• Resources on Public Opinion and Public Policy
• Delegation, Regulation, and Accountability
• Policy, Institutions, and Blame Avoidance
• Governance of Risk

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Bicameralism in Stable Democracies
• Channels of Electoral Representation in Advanced Industrialized Democracies
• Democratic Citizenship
• Democratization
• Electoral System Reform in Advanced Democracies
• Gender and Electoral Politics in the United States
• Ideal Point Estimation
• Interest Groups in American Politics
• Media Effects in Politics
• Politics of Japan
• Post-Communist Democratization
• Public Opinion and Public Policy in Advanced Democracies
• Science and Democracy
• The Impact of Campaign Contributions on Congressional Behavior

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Cross-National Surveys of Public Opinion
• Politics of School Reform
• Ratification of the Constitution
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Mechanisms of Representation by Will Jennings LAST REVIEWED: 29 November 2011 LAST MODIFIED: 29 November 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0032

“Mechanisms of representation” relate to the organization of politics and its consequences, and the processes through which interests or preferences are represented in the political system and the outcomes of public policy. This article explores a diverse set of mechanisms through which politics is organized, and through which the preferences or interests of the public, voters, groups, and economic interests are either advanced or obstructed. Traditional approaches of political science often adopted a narrow focus on the formal democratic qualities of elected government and the pluralism of the political system in incorporating different interests or preferences into the decision-making process and policy outcomes. Later waves of research sought to explore bias in mechanisms of representation, such as the disproportionate influence of interest groups in the governmental process and the power of agenda setting in determining which issues make it onto the decision-making table and when. Nevertheless, there continues to be considerable interest in the role of formal political institutions in determining the performance of representative democracy, how political parties act as vehicles for representation, and how elections can provide mandates to governments and enable voters to reward or punish political parties or candidates for the quality of their representation or performance. Indeed, a growing field of enquiry identifies a direct link between the preferences of the public and their representatives, either in the representation of constituency opinion or in the responsiveness of the political system as a whole. Despite this pervasive concern throughout the discipline of political science with the functioning of democratic politics, important changes in modern states, economies, and societies occurring outside elected institutions also shape representation, particularly as executive governance and politics has assumed increasing importance. The conventional understanding of mechanisms of representation is built upon shifting sands, with the emergence of the “regulatory state” and the decline of traditional distributive and command activities of government, and with ever more “networked,” “nonhierarchical,” and “transnational” modes of governing—often by unelected authorities. These changing institutional arrangements also reflect a response to the rise of risk as a focus of organization, as traditional social and economic cleavages are redrawn and reconstructed around questions of risk—often manmade, created through scientific innovation or economic progress. These changes point toward the changing battleground for representation both of public and political interests and the increasing importance of understanding questions of bureaucratic politics and control, transnational regulation, the management of risk, and the preoccupation of officeholders with the avoidance of blame. Mechanisms of representation shed light on all these things and more, encompassing the role of institutions in reflecting public or private interests in the decision-making process.

“Who gets what, when, and how?” is the classic question posed by Lasswell 1936 , which lies at the heart of all modern political science. Mechanisms of representation relate to the organization of politics and its consequences. Whose interests or preferences are represented, and when and how are they represented? The mechanisms of representation are numerous and diverse in their character and implications. Some accounts are rooted in theories of homo economicus , derived from assumptions about vote-seeking politicians and utility-maximizing citizens (see Downs 1957 ). Others stress the importance of collective action ( Olson 1965 ), and institutions ( North 1990 and Ostrom 1990 ). What unifies this field of enquiry is a concern with the mechanisms through which policy is made and policy outcomes are affected. Policies determine politics, Lowi 1972 argues. That is, particular sorts of policy tools—such as distributive, redistributive, or regulatory mechanisms—tend to be associated with certain configurations and expectations of outcomes, serving as a focal point for the mobilization of political preferences and interests. Distributive policies with few direct losers might be rather more consensual and less debated than those imposing compliance costs on industry or raising taxes, for example. As such, public policies set the parameters in which the conduct of politics takes place. Variation in policy domains leads to varying degrees of conflict and consensus. Policies are the “variable” of interest across a wide range of theoretical perspectives and empirical studies. The mechanisms of representation include, for example, political institutions, elections, parties, interest groups, public opinion, social movements, bureaucracies, judiciaries, legislatures, regulators, media, and technology itself. At the same time, understanding the mechanisms of representation requires us to understand the obstacles to change: the exclusion of certain groups from office or from the decision-making process, the power of the definition of alternatives through agenda setting and the expansion of conflict ( Schattschneider 1960 ), and blame avoidance by officeholders. Further, the organization of politics is constantly testing boundaries and entering new spheres of mobilization, whether it is in the retrenchment of welfare states that followed postwar expansion, the government of risk, or the reshaping of the tools of governance in the digital age.

Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy . New York: Harper & Row, 1957.

Downs’s economic model of political competition is a founding work of rational-choice approaches to understanding democracy, outlining theoretical expectations regarding the spatial, left-right, distribution of voter preferences and the strategic reasons why parties have incentives to converge around the median voter.

Lasswell, Harold. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.

One of the founders of modern political science, Harold Lasswell defined the study of politics as “the study of influence and the influential.” His is a broadly elitist conception of politics, but this work presents a framework for starting to unpick the question of who is represented.

Lowi, Theodore J. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.” Public Administration Review 32.4 (1972): 298–310.

DOI: 10.2307/974990

Building on a classic article published in World Politics in 1964, Lowi formulates a taxonomy for classification of public policy—the means of coercion of government—distinguishing between distributive, regulative, redistributive, and constituent forms of policy.

North, Douglass C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

A seminal contribution for understanding the formation of political and economic institutions, and how these affect economic performance over time. North argues that institutions serve to reduce uncertainties and shape path dependence in economic development.

Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.

An economic analysis that highlights the collective action problem for coordination of interest groups, as benefits from lobbying are a public good and there are incentives for participants to free-ride.

Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

A major contribution on collective action and institutional design. Considers the collective management of resources, suggesting that such “common pool resources” (CPRs) do not necessarily imply a “tragedy of the commons” and instead highlights the design principles of systems associated with successful management of CPRs.

Schattschneider, Elmer E. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America . New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, 1960.

One of the seminal works on agenda setting, and politics, more generally. Schattschneider’s ideas still resonate today as a challenge to pluralism and a thesis on the power of agenda setting: “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.”

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Political Science »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Oceania, Gender, Indigenous and Ethnic Political Represent...
• Advanced Democracies, Electoral System Reform in
• Advanced Democracies, Public Opinion and Public Policy in
• Advertising and Election Campaigns in the United States
• Africa, Comparative Politics of
• Africa, Ethnic, Linguistic, Religious, and Regional Minori...
• Africa, Public Opinion in
• Africa, Women’s Political Representation in
• African Development, Politics of
• American Indian Politics
• Ancient Chinese Political Thought
• Arab Spring, The
• Arab-Israel Conflict, The
• Arendt, Hannah
• Argentine Government and Politics
• Aristotle's Political Thought
• Arms Race Modeling
• Asia, Environmental Politics in
• Asia, Water Politics in
• Asian American Mobilization and Political Identities
• Australia and New Zealand, Comparative Politics of
• Authoritarian Regimes, Lawyers in
• Authoritarianism in Russia
• Authoritarianism in the Public
• Authoritarianism in Turkey
• Big Data in Political Science Research
• Biopolitics and State Regulation of Human Life
• Birthright Citizenship
• Brazilian Foreign Policy
• Brazilian Political Development
• Brexit, British Politics, and European Integration
• Business-State Relations in Europe
• Campaign Finance in the Era of Super-PACS
• Canadian Foreign Policy
• Canadian Government and Politics
• Candidate Emergence and Recruitment
• Caribbean, Elections and Democracy in the
• Celebrities in US Politics
• Channels of Electoral Representation in Advanced Industria...
• China, Political Economy of
• China's One-Child Policy
• China-Taiwan Relations
• Chinese Communist Party
• Chinese Economic Policy
• Chinese Nationalism
• Civil Society in South Asia
• Civil War in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Civil-Military Relations in Asia
• Class in American Politics
• Climate Change and Politics
• Collective Memory
• Colombian Politics and Government
• Comparative Capitalism Theory
• Comparative Industrial Relations in Europe
• Comparative Political Economy of Resource Extraction
• Comparative Politics of Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bis...
• Comparative Politics of Chile and Uruguay
• Comparative Politics of Federalism
• Comparative Politics of the Middle East and North Africa
• Computational Social Science
• Congress, Defense, and Foreign Policy
• Congressional Reassertion of Authority
• Conservative Litigation Strategies and Groups in US Judici...
• Constitutional Politics in Asia
• Constitutionalism
• Corruption in China
• Cosmopolitan Political Thought
• Crisis of European Integration in Historical Perspective, ...
• Critical Elections, Partisan Realignment, and Long-Term El...
• Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School
• Cuban Political Development
• Cycles of Protest
• Democracies, Political Clientelism in
• Democracy and Authoritarianism, Empirical Indicators of
• Democracy and Authoritarianism in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Democracy and Dictatorship in Central Asia
• Democracy and Minority Language Recognition
• Democracy in Latin America
• Democratic Consolidation
• Democratic Peace Theory
• Democratic Theory
• Democratization in Africa
• Democratization in Central America
• Democratization in Mexico
• Democratization in the Muslim World
• Development of Survey Research
• Diasporas and Politics
• Direct Democracy in the United States
• Dual Citizenship
• East Africa, Politics of
• East and Southeast Asia, Political Party Systems in
• East and Southeast Asia, Women and Politics in
• East Asia, Civil Society and Social Movements in
• Economic Voting
• Effects of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on American Public O...
• Egalitarianism
• Election Forecasting
• Election Laws in Democracies
• Election Observation and the Detection of Fraud
• Electoral and Party System Development in Sub-Saharan Afri...
• Electoral Assistance
• Electoral Change in Latin America
• Electoral Institutions and Women’s Representation
• Electoral Reform and Voting in the United States
• Electoral Volatility in the New Democracies of Latin Ameri...
• Electronic Voting Systems
• Emotion and Racial Attitudes in Contemporary American Poli...
• Environmental Governance
• Environmental Politics among Advanced Industrial Democraci...
• Ethnic Diasporas and US Foreign Policy
• Ethnic Politics
• Eurasia, Comparative Politics of
• European Parliament, The
• European Social Democracy
• European Union, Politics of the
• Extension of Voting Rights to Emigrants
• Failed and Weak States in Theory and Practice
• Far-Right Parties in Europe
• Federalism in the United States
• Feminist Political Thought
• Field Experiments
• Filibuster, The
• Framing Effects in Political Communication
• Gender and International Relations
• Gender and Political Violence
• Gender and Politics in South Asia
• Gender, Behavior, and Representation
• Gender Gap in US Public Opinion
• Gender Stereotypes in Politics
• Genetic Underpinnings of Political Attitudes and Behaviors
• German Politics and Government
• Global Inequality
• Globalization and the Welfare State
• Globalization, Health Crises, and Health Care
• Governance in Africa
• Governmental Responses to Political Corruption
• Gridlock and Divided Government in the U.S.
• Health-Care Politics in the United States
• Historiography of Twentieth-Century American Conservatism,...
• Hobbes’s Political Thought
• Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of
• Hume’s Political Thought
• Hybrid Regimes
• Identity and Political Behavior
• Ideological Reasoning in Politics
• Illiberal Democracies and Democratic Backsliding
• Immigrant Incorporation in Canada
• Immigrant Incorporation in Western Europe
• Immigration and European Politics
• Immigration and International Relations
• Immigration Politics and Policy in the United States
• Impact of Campaign Contributions on Congressional Behavior...
• Impact of C-SPAN on US Democracy
• Implicit Attitudes in Public Opinion
• Income Dynamics and Politics in North America and Europe
• Income Inequality and Advanced Democracies
• Income Inequality in the United States, The Politics of
• Independent Voters, The Study of
• Indian Democracy
• Indigenous Politics and Representation in Latin America
• Indigenous Rights and Governance in Canada, Australia, and...
• Indonesia, Politics of
• Informal Practices of Accountability in Urban Africa
• Institutional Change in Advanced Democracies
• Institutional Factors Affecting Women’s Political Engageme...
• Intellectual Property in International Relations
• Interest Groups and Inequality in the United States
• Interethnic Contact and Impact on Attitudes
• International Conflict Management
• International Criminal Justice
• International NGOs
• International Political Economy of Illegal Drugs
• Internet and Politics, The
• Intersectionality in Political Science
• Interstate Border Dispute Management in the Indo-Pacific
• Iran, Political Development of
• Israeli Politics
• Italian Politics and Government
• Judicial Supremacy and National Judicial Review
• Judiciaries and Politics in East Asia
• Kant's Political Thought
• Labor Migration: Dynamics and Politics
• Labor Politics in East Asia
• Land Reform in Latin America
• Latin America, Democratic Transitions in
• Latin America, Electoral Reform in
• Latin America, Environmental Policy and Politics in
• Latin America, Guerrilla Insurgencies in
• Latin America, Social Movements in
• Legal Mobilization
• LGBT Politics in the United States
• Liberal Pluralism
• Libertarianism
• Local Governments in the United States
• Machiavelli’s Political Thought
• Malaysian Politics and Government
• Marx's Political Thought
• Mass Incarceration and US Politics
• Mechanisms of Representation
• Media Politics in South Asia
• Mexican Political Development
• Mexican Politics and Government
• Military Government in Latin America, 1959–1990
• Minority Governments
• Minority Political Engagement and Representation in the Un...
• Mixed-Member Electoral Systems
• Modern Dynastic Rule
• Modern Elections and Voting Behavior in Europe
• Motivated Reasoning
• Narrative Analysis
• National Interbranch Politics in the United States
• Nationalism
• NATO, Politics of
• Negative Campaigning
• Neoclassical Realism
• New Institutionalism Revisited, The
• Nigerian Politics and Government
• North America, Comparative Politics of
• Oil, Politics of
• Online Public Opinion Polling
• Organized Criminal Syndicates and Governance in Mexico and...
• Origins and Impact of Proportional Representation, The
• Outcomes of Social Movements and Protest Activities
• Partisan and Nonpartisan Theories of Organization in the U...
• Partisan Polarization in the US Congress
• Partisan Polarization in the US Electorate
• Party Networks
• Party System Institutionalization in Democracies
• Peace Operations
• Personality and Politics
• Personalization of Politics
• Philippine Politics and Government
• Plato’s Political Thought
• Policy Feedback
• Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion
• Political Ambition
• Political Economy of Financial Regulation in Advanced Ind...
• Political Economy of India
• Political Economy of Taxation, The
• Political Geography in American Politics
• Political Humor and Its Effects
• Political Institutions and the Policymaking Process in Lat...
• Political Obligation
• Political Participation and Representation, Black
• Political Parties and Electoral Politics of Japan
• Political Roles and Activities of Former Presidents and Pr...
• Political Thought, Hegel's
• Political Thought of the American Founders, The
• Politics and Government, BeNeLux
• Politics and Policy in Contemporary Argentina
• Politics, Gender Quotas in
• Politics of Anti-Americanism
• Politics of Class Formation
• Politics of Disaster Prevention and Management
• Politics of Ethnic Identity in China
• Politics of Financial Crises
• Politics of Foreign Direct Investment in South Asia
• Politics of Higher Education in the U.S.
• Politics of Internal Conquest in the United States and Can...
• Politics of Natural Disasters, The
• Politics of North Korea
• Politics of Science and Technology
• Politics of South Africa
• Politics of Southern Africa
• Politics of the American South
• Politics of the Philippines: From Rizal to Duterte
• Politics of the US-Mexico Border
• Populism in Latin America
• Positive and Negative Partisanship
• Postcolonial Political Theory
• Postcolonialism and International Relations
• Preferential Trade Agreements, Politics of
• Presidential Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspectiv...
• Presidential Persuasion and Public Opinion
• Presidential Primaries and Caucuses
• Private Governance
• Protest Participation
• Public Opinion in Affluent  Democracies
• Public Opinion in Europe toward the European Union
• Public Opinion in New Democracies and Developing Nations
• Public Opinion on Immigration
• Public Opinion toward the Environment and Climate Change i...
• Public Presidency, US Elections, and the Permanent Campaig...
• Qualitative Methods, The Renewal of
• Race in American Political Thought
• Racial and Ethnic Descriptive Representation in the United...
• Recruitment and Selection for Elected Office
• Redistricting and Electoral Competition in American Politi...
• Referendums and Direct Democracy
• Regime Transitions and Variation in Post-Communist Europe
• Regional Integration
• Regional Integration in Latin America
• Regional Security
• Regulating Food Production
• Religion and Politics in Latin America
• Religion in American Political Thought
• Religion in Contemporary Political Thought
• Religion, Politics, and Civic Engagement in the United Sta...
• Republicanism
• Rousseau’s Political Thought
• Rule of Law
• Russia and the West
• Science and Social Movements
• Secession and Secessionist Movements
• Semi-Presidential Systems
• Social Networks, Mass Publics, and Democratic Politics
• Social Policy and Immigrant Integration
• South Asian Political Thought
• South Korea, Politics of
• Southeast Asia, International Relations in
• Southeast Asian Politics
• Spanish Politics and Government
• Spectacle, The
• Sport and Politics
• State Building in Sub-Saharan Africa
• State Formation
• State, The Nature of the
• State-Society Relations in South Asia
• Stereotypes in Political Reasoning
• Supreme Court and Public Opinion
• Supreme Court of the United States, The
• Systemic Theories of International Politics
• Taiwan, Politics of
• Tea Party, The
• Thailand, Politics of
• The Crisis of European Integration in Historical Perspecti...
• The New Right in American Political Thought
• The Politics of Parenthood: Attitudes, Behavior, Policy, a...
• The Politics of Waste and Social Inequalities in Indian Ci...
• Third-Party Politics in the United States
• Tocqueville’s Political Thought
• Transboundary Pollution
• Transitional Justice
• Transnational Private Regulation
• Trust in Latin American Governing Institutions
• Turkey, Political Development of
• US Military Bases Abroad
• US Politics, Neoliberalism in
• US Presidency, The
• US Presidential Campaigns and Their Impact
• Venezuela, The Path Toward Authoritarianism in
• Voter Support for Women Candidates
• Voter Turnout
• Voter Turnout Field Experiments
• Voting Technology and Election Administration in the Unite...
• War, Factors Influencing Popular Support for
• Welfare State Development
• Welfare State Development in Latin America
• Welfare State Development in Western Europe
• West Africa, Politics of
• White Identity Politics
• Women and Conflict Studies
• Women’s Inclusion in Executive Cabinets
• Women’s Legal and Constitutional Rights
• Women’s Political Activism and Civic Engagement in Latin A...
• Women’s Representation in Governmental Office in Latin Ame...
• Women’s Representation in the Middle East and North Africa
• Workers’ Politics in China
• Youth and Generational Differences in US Politics
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [185.148.24.167]
• 185.148.24.167

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Development and debates

• Single transferable vote
• Party-list system
• Additional-member system

• Should election day be made a national holiday?
• Should the United States use the Electoral College in presidential elections?

proportional representation

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Electoral Reform Society - Proportional Representation
• History Learning Site - Proportional Representation
• US House of Representatives - History, Art and Archives - Proportional Representation
• Academia - Arguments against proportional representation
• proportional representation - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

proportional representation , electoral system that seeks to create a representative body that reflects the overall distribution of public support for each political party . Where majority or plurality systems effectively reward strong parties and penalize weak ones by providing the representation of a whole constituency to a single candidate who may have received fewer than half of the votes cast (as is the case, for example, in the United States), proportional representation ensures minority groups a measure of representation proportionate to their electoral support. Systems of proportional representation have been adopted in many countries, including Belgium, Denmark, Finland , Greece, Hungary, Israel , Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Russia , Spain, Sweden , and Switzerland .

Advocates for proportional representation argue that an election is like a census of opinion as to how the country should be governed, and only if an assembly represents the full diversity of opinion within a country can its decisions be regarded as legitimate . For example, proponents maintain that the plurality system can produce unrepresentative, minority governments, such as in the United Kingdom, where the two major parties governed the country for the last three decades of the 20th century with little more than 40 percent of the votes. The proportional system also is suggested as a means of redressing the possible anomaly arising under majority or plurality systems whereby a party may win more seats with fewer popular votes than its opponents, as occurred in the British elections of 1951 and February 1974.

Critics of proportional representation contend that in an election a country is making a decision, and the function of the electoral system is to achieve a consensus rather than a census of opinion. Opponents argue further that, by making it possible for small parties to be represented, proportional representation encourages the formation of splinter parties that can result in weak and unstable government.

Unlike the plurality system, which uses single-member districts, proportional representation systems use multimember constituencies . Systematic methods of applying proportional representation were first developed in the mid-19th century in Denmark by Carl Andrae and in Britain by Thomas Hare and John Stuart Mill . Methods currently in use include the single-transferable-vote method (STV), the party- list system , and the additional-member system.

• Take Action

Representation Matters: An Intersectional Analysis of What’s at Stake for Women in Politics in 2020

If you’re on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook, you’ve probably seen #RepresentationMatters floating around. The phrase checks all the boxes for social media – it’s trendy, catchy, and well-suited to describe an expansive list of fields and situations. 

But what is representation when it comes to politics? Who are our representatives, how do we choose them, and what roles can and should they fill beyond being legislators? Why does representation matter? What are the limitations of representation and how can we gauge the success of a representative? And how do current political, societal, and economic situations necessitate enhanced political representation?

Recent events and a looming national election have brought representation – particularly gender representation – to the forefront of political discourse again. 2020 has proven to be historic in numerous ways; but, for meaningful insight into political representation, the outcomes of the 2018 midterm election still yield countless important lessons. As we approach November with an eye towards gender and intersectionality in American politics, it’s worth understanding what political representation is and it’s worth considering what we can learn from the past.

Demystifying Political Representation

Political representation is a concept used in political science scholarship, and it can be distilled into four primary components: formalistic, descriptive, substantive, and symbolic representation. Each is defined by Hannah Pitkin in her 1967 book , The Concept of Representation . In short, political representation refers to the presence of different identity groups in politics, the impacts these groups have, and structures that affect the likelihood that such groups will break into the political sphere. 

Formalistic representation denotes the formal institutions and systems that determine the structure of elections and affect how candidates emerge and are selected. The United States employs a “ First Past the Post ” (FPTP) electoral system. This means that the candidate who receives the most votes in a given election is the candidate who wins – in other words, the winner takes all. Other countries may use proportional representation (PR) systems, where the composition of seats in multi-member districts is proportional to the number of votes received by different parties.

Descriptive representation refers to the demographic composition of legislatures, or who is present. Do representatives look like the constituents they serve? Let’s look at the current makeup of the U.S. Congress. According to the Center for American Women and Politics , of the 535 members serving, women are 23.7%. Of these women, 37.8% are women of color. Of all members of Congress, 9% are women of color. Descriptive representation isn’t limited to race and gender; it can refer to nearly any identity, including religion, sexuality, age, or ability.

Substantive representation considers the actual actions of elected officials. What pieces of legislation has a representative sponsored or co-sponsored? How does a representative vote on different issues? Are these actions reflective of the interests of constituents? 

Symbolic representation refers to the emotional response that a representative’s presence elicits. The presence of a representative belonging to a historically marginalized group, for example, may have a variety of effects on those being represented. Some individuals may be more inspired to run for office or envision themselves in a position of leadership. Others may feel a greater sense of trust in political institutions or become more civically engaged.

Why Representation Matters

In the historic 2018 midterm – an election that was viewed as a referendum on Donald Trump’s 2016 victory – a record number of women belonging to different visible and invisible identity groups were elected to the U.S. Congress. Though Congress remains disproportionately white and male, the shifting demographics of the institution after the 2018 midterm in terms of gender, race, sexuality, age, religion, ability, and members’ professional and personal backgrounds exemplify descriptive representation.

Deb Haaland is one of these women. When Haaland (D-NM) was elected to represent New Mexico’s First Congressional District in 2018, she joined Sharice Davids (D-KS) in becoming one of the first Native American women to serve in Congress. When campaigning for the office she now holds, one of the issues Haaland prioritized was gender equality. However, unlike many of her colleagues, the lens through which Haaland viewed gender equality highlighted the unique injustices and forms of violence that Native American women face.

Since being sworn into the 116 th U.S. Congress, Haaland has shown that violence against Native American women remains a priority of hers. In July of 2019, Haaland introduced H.R.3977 , the Justice for Native Survivors of Sexual Violence Act. In November of 2019, Haaland introduced a resolution, H.Res.735 “recognizing the maternal health crisis among indigenous women in the United States.” Now, as Haaland campaigns for re-election in 2020, she hasn’t given up this fight.

Violence rates against women and girls in Indian Country are 10x higher than the national average. Today is a National Day or Awareness for Missing & Murdered Native Women & Girls. We can’t ignore this #SilentCrisis we are #NotInvisible ! #MMIW pic.twitter.com/MaZArbrZrG — Deb Haaland (@DebHaalandNM) May 5, 2020

Haaland’s presence in the legislative branch has been symbolic in various ways. As a representative, Haaland has given other Native American individuals and tribal leaders the opportunity to speak before her colleagues. In many ways, this gesture signifies that these communities now have an ally who will ensure that their voices are amplified. For another example, consider the date that Haaland was sworn; Haaland wore a traditional Pueblo dress and customary Native American jewelry, and was joined by her family, who also wore traditional clothing. In this moment, she became the first elected member of Congress to do so in the Capitol Building during a swearing-in ceremony. 

New Mexicans are in the house, the US House that is. #116thCongress pic.twitter.com/imeeaVJAkq — Rep. Deb Haaland (@RepDebHaaland) January 3, 2019

The structure of our electoral system- in conjunction with other systems of oppression- are responsible for the fact that it took until 2018 to elect Native American women to Congress. With their election came a renewed focus on considering legislation through a lens that is inclusive of marginalized communities. Moreover, the symbolic implications of having historically underrepresented groups present in the halls of Congress cannot be overstated and will have far-reaching impacts on our democracy.

What About Other Newly Elected Members?

Haaland wasn’t the only woman who broke barriers in 2018 while also bringing her personal experiences and identities to Congress. Lucy McBath (D-GA) was elected in 2018, 6 years after her son Jordan was shot and killed. After focusing much of her energy as a candidate on gun violence prevention, McBath introduced H.R.3076 in 2019 to effectuate common-sense gun violence prevention. Lauren Underwood (D-IL) was elected as the youngest black woman in the history of the U.S. Congress after serving as a nurse and health policy expert. In the time that she’s served in Congress, Underwood has introduced bills including H.R.6142, which pertains to black maternal health, and H.R.5444, which concerns lowering the prices of insulin. 

It couldn’t be clearer that newly elected women have also had symbolic impacts on those they serve. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) became the youngest woman elected to Congress when she won in 2018. Since then, she has made it a point to speak directly to other young people. After her victory, Ocasio-Cortez encouraged young people to participate in politics and run for office, stating, “Congress is supposed to represent the American people. One of the largest electorates right now are millennials and young people … Frankly, if we’re not in the halls of Congress, then Congress isn’t working.”

Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), another newly elected progressive, revealed in early 2020 that she has alopecia, an autoimmune disease that causes hair loss. Recognizing her powerful platform and responsibility to serve as a role model, Pressley opened up about this health condition, stating, “I hope this starts a conversation about the personal struggles we navigate, and I hope that it creates awareness about how many people are impacted by alopecia.” 

We live in a representative democracy. As such, it is antithetical to founding democratic principles to have a government that doesn’t look like the people it serves. Enhancing the representation of not only women, but women of different races, religions, sexualities, ages, and abilities allows the American people to see themselves in politics. If seeing is believing, the importance of representation cannot be overstated.

A Note on Representation

It’s worth noting that representation has limitations. Of course, any one representative is still just one person. This means that they are limited to their singular experiences and perspectives, which may in turn inform their roles and values as legislators. For example, electing a white woman belonging to the middle class does not mean that all women will have a voice in Washington. 

It should also go without saying that all representatives should care about issues disproportionately affecting certain communities – such as Native American communities – and that in their capacities as elected officials, all representatives have the ability to support and introduce legislation to assist such communities. Unfortunately, too often representatives are unlikely to recognize the severity or existence of those issues that do not uniquely and directly affect their health, security, or wellbeing.

As Haaland has said , on the topic of issues disproportionately impacting Native American communities: “If I weren’t here, if Sharice weren’t here, who would be thinking about those things?” 

One of the first Native women elected to Congress, @RepDebHaaland takes us on a tour of the Capitol. Her grandparents went from being denied voting rights because they were American Indian to having a granddaughter who is now amplifying the voices of tribal citizens. pic.twitter.com/LLyhiAvBdw — Scripps News (@scrippsnews) July 20, 2020

Beyond the Halls of Congress

The impacts of political representation can be felt far beyond the halls of Congress. In many ways, the policies shaped by state and local political offices affect the lives, security, and wellbeing of communities more immediately and more tangibly than those introduced in Congress. Though state and local elections generate less attention than national elections do, electing candidates with diverse identities, experiences, and perspectives similarly has the potential to enhance discourse and civic engagement while also inspiring policies that are more responsive to and representative of constituents’ needs.

Consider the impact that Ella Jones had when she was elected the first Black and first woman mayor of Ferguson, Missouri in June of 2020. Ferguson garnered national attention in 2014 when Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager, was shot and killed by the police. This sparked a series of protests that spotlighted the Black Lives Matter movement. Jones campaigned on issues including public safety, youth engagement, and community engagement, and since winning her mayoral election has said, “My election gives people hope. Everybody is looking for a change, everybody wants a better way of life … I have been living in injustice my whole life.”

How about Rosemary Ketchum? Ketchum , a community organizer and activist, made history in early June by becoming the first openly transgender individual elected in West Virginia when she was elected to the Wheeling City Council. After her victory, Ketchum told reporters that she “(feels) excited to represent inclusivity.” In response to Ketchum’s achievement, the LGBTQ Victory Fund, a political action committee, said in a statement that “Rosemary’s victory will resonate well beyond her state” and  “will inspire other trans people … to consider a run for office in their communities.”

What’s at Stake in 2020?

Like 2018, the 2020 election is shaping up to be historic in numerous ways. According to the Center for American Women and Politics , 60 women have filed to run for U.S. Senate seats, which exceeds the record 53 women who filed to run for these seats in 2018. 584 women have filed to run for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, exceeding the record of 476 set in 2018. 

These women candidates come from different backgrounds and belong to different identity groups. In New Mexico, it is possible that an all-female delegation will be elected to the House of Representatives in the fall. More notably, various sources anticipate that this delegation will be entirely composed of women of color. According to EMILY’s List , multiple women of color are running to flip congressional seats in states ranging from New York to Texas. Women belonging to the LGBTQ+ community are running, as are women with professional backgrounds in education, public service, healthcare, and military service, among others.

Unlike 2018, however, these candidates are running against a social, political, and economic backdrop that is almost unparalleled. Grappling with a pandemic and facing renewed national discussions about the realities of systemic racism and oppression amid the George Floyd protests, this year has thrown unprecedented challenges at underrepresented communities. Many of these crises are interrelated, and many of these challenges disproportionately impact women and women of color.

If scientists develop an effective vaccination for COVID-19 and the public protests surrounding police brutality and systemic oppression begin to fade, public health, domestic violence, income inequality, and racism will still exist and will still disproportionately impact marginalized communities. Current events have shed light on why electing diverse women candidates matters now more than ever.

What Can Be Done in the Meantime?

Support women running for office. Support women of color. Support women who will bring their rich experiences and perspectives to Congress and their local communities, from their professional backgrounds to their visible and invisible identities. 

Some women are running to flip congressional districts this fall. Get familiar with these names: Jackie Gordon , a veteran, educator, and community leader, is running to flip New York’s Second Congressional District. Pat Timmons-Goodson , who serves on the United States Commission on Civil Rights, is running to flip North Carolina’s Eighth Congressional District. Candace Valenzuela , who struggled with homelessness before becoming a first-generation college graduate and an at-large representative on the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District board, is running to flip Texas’ 24th Congressional District. 

Other women – including those mentioned earlier – are running to keep the seats they won in 2018 or earlier. Incumbent women in Congress need your support too. Beyond the halls of Congress, it is critical to support women running for state and local offices. Women running for these offices face barriers much like those that women running for Congress face; as such, every penny donated and every minute spent volunteering has the potential to carry these candidates to victory in state and local elections.

There are different ways to support candidates, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consider making phone calls or sending text messages on behalf of candidates; donating to campaigns or organizations that support women running for office; encouraging others to donate; registering to vote; and making sure your friends and family are registered to vote.

It’s on us to enhance representation in politics. This means electing more women, but also electing diverse women. Identity politics is real, it matters, and we’ve been watching it play out for years. Politicians’ unique experiences and perspectives inform their values and priorities. It’s time that these values and priorities align with those held by the American people.

Cecilia Ritacco

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > American Political Science Review
• > Volume 105 Issue 3
• > Clarifying the Concept of Representation

Article contents

Clarifying the concept of representation.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2011

This response to Andrew Rehfeld's “Representation Rethought” ( American Political Science Review 2009) takes up his criticisms of my “Rethinking Representation” ( American Political Science Review 2003) to advance a more relational and systematic approach to representation. To this end, it suggests replacing the “trustee” concept of representation with a “selection model” based on the selection and replacement of “gyroscopic” representatives who are both relatively self-reliant in judgment and relatively nonresponsive to sanctions. It explores as well the interaction between representatives’ (and constituents’) perceptions of reality and their normative views of what the representative ought to represent. Building from the concept of surrogate representation and other features of legislative representation, it argues for investigating, both normatively and empirically, not only the characteristics of individual representatives emphasized by Rehfeld's analysis but also the representative–constituent relationship and the larger representative system, including both elected and nonelected representatives, inside and outside the legislature.

Access options

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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 saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

• Volume 105, Issue 3
• JANE MANSBRIDGE (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000189

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Symbolic Representation as Political Practice

Cite this chapter.

• Kristian Stokke &
• Elin Selboe  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Governance, Security, and Development ((GSD))

351 Accesses

12 Citations

15 Altmetric

S ymbolic representation is a key dimension of political representation and deserves critical attention when the agenda is to rethink popular representation. In his outline of a framework for analysing political representation, Törnquist 1 highlights the lasting influence of Pitkin’s classic study of The Concept of Representation. 2 Pitkin famously distinguishes between representation as ‘standing for’ and representation as ‘acting for’ another, that is, a distinction between what a representative is and what she does. Within this classification scheme, symbolic representation is presented as one way of standing for a social group. Although descriptive representation means that a representative body reflects the composition of the people that are being represented, symbolic representation implies that a representative symbolises a constituency, for example, the way a king is a symbolic figure for the nation. Symbols might be arbitrary or natural, but this is of little relevance because the connection between a symbol and its referent is about feelings rather than likeness, in contrast to descriptive representation. What matters for symbolic representation is the extent to which people believe in a symbol.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Introduction: Political Representation in France and Germany

Claude Lefort, Political Anthropology, and Symbolic Division

The Pitkinian public: representation in the eyes of citizens

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Oslo, Norway

Olle Törnquist ( professor of political science and development research ) & Kristian Stokke ( professor of human geography ) ( professor of political science and development research ) &  ( professor of human geography )

Politics and Governance Research Unit, Danish Institute for International Studies, Denmark

Neil Webster ( senior researcher ) ( senior researcher )

Copyright information

© 2009 Olle Törnquist, Neil Webster, and Kristian Stokke

About this chapter

Stokke, K., Selboe, E. (2009). Symbolic Representation as Political Practice. In: Törnquist, O., Webster, N., Stokke, K. (eds) Rethinking Popular Representation. Palgrave Studies in Governance, Security, and Development. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230102095_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230102095_4

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-38332-0

Online ISBN : 978-0-230-10209-5

eBook Packages : Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies Collection Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Why Representation in Politics Actually Matters

At this week's presidential debate, both serious contenders left in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination made a historic pronouncement. Former Vice President Joe Biden committed to choosing a woman as his running mate, while Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said that, "in all likelihood," he would do the same. Online, where most of the discussion currently resides because of the global coronavirus outbreak , reaction to the candidates pledge was mixed. For some who hoped, after four years with an avowed misogynist in the Oval Office, that a woman would be the one to deliver the country from President Donald Trump, the promise was welcome , especially now that the contest has dwindled down to two old, white, straight men. Others saw the gesture as the hollow homogenization of over half the population — just one thing to consider amid other critical criteria upon which to evaluate a future presidential nominee.

But having women in politics — and more broadly, having representation across all identities of race, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status — has tangible effects on the health and functioning of democracy, political scientists told Teen Vogue . Indeed, the body of research showing the value of having women run for and attain political office is rich and growing.

The first argument for the equal inclusion of women, and all identities present in America, is basic fairness, says Kelly Dittmar, assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University–Camden and scholar at the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics. “If the system is meant to be a representative democracy, then it should be representative of the many populations it serves, and that includes women.”

Despite the significant gains in the 2018 midterms , women are still woefully underrepresented in American politics. As it stands , women occupy 127 of the 535 seats in the U.S. Congress, or 23.7% of power. For statewide executive offices and state legislatures, the share for women is only slightly better, hovering around 30%. The global average for women’s representation in government is 24.5%, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union , which places the U.S. 82nd of 189 countries on this metric.

“Having women and people of color in political office is beneficial because it’s a sign our political system is open and that everybody can participate no matter their position,” Christina Wolbrecht, professor of political science and director of the Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy at Notre Dame University, told Teen Vogue . If equal democracy is a sign of democratic openness, then our paltry representation of women, and especially women of color , shows American democracy is not an accessible — or healthy — system.

For many, Warren’s exit spawned such a flood of frustration because it reinforced this exact idea, said Mirya Holman, associate professor of political science at Tulane University. “The way she dropped out with a lot of people being supportive , but that not translating into actual votes, reminds people the system is not actually all that open or welcoming to women,” Holman told Teen Vogue .

Setting fairness aside, women are vital to American politics because they bring symbolic power that comes with a cascade of benefits for democracy. Put simply, “It matters because you cannot be what you cannot see,” Jennifer Piscopo, associate professor of politics at Occidental College, told Teen Vogue . Increasing the number of women in political leadership makes it more likely young women and men will see women as both capable of and an equally natural fit for public leadership , Dittmar, the Rutgers professor, pointed out. “This starts to disrupt what has been a white male dominance in American politics, and that is especially true at the presidential level where no woman has served,” she added.

Symbolic representation also provides the crucial ingredient of trust needed for the successful relationship between the governors and governed in any democratic society. In 2016, Piscopo and her research partners Amanda Clayton of Vanderbilt University and Diana O’Brien of Indiana University ran a series of survey experiments asking Americans to read fictitious articles about state legislative committees with varying levels of gender balance that were evaluating sexual harassment policies. The findings showed a resounding rejection of all-male panels that decided to decrease penalties for sexual harassers, with respondents saying they were less likely to agree with the outcome, more likely to believe the process was unfair and the decision should be overturned, and less trustful of the overall results. “When the folks in office are more diverse and gender-balanced we see people have more trust in government and participate in politics more. The paradox is all these stereotypes make it hard for women to get into office in the first place,” Piscopo told Teen Vogue .

Recent research from Wolbrecht and fellow Notre Dame University professor David Cambell also confirms the relationship between representation and trust in government, especially among girls. Based on a national sample of 997 American teenagers, ages 15–18, administered in the fall of 2016 before the election, and then again in 2017, Wolbrecht and Cambell found a drastic decline in how girls, especially those identifying as Democrats, viewed the state of American democracy. In 2016, 37% of Democratic girls thought politics helped meet their needs. A year later that belief had dropped by 20 percentage points.

But when these same teens were interviewed again in 2018, Democratic girls’ trust in democracy rebounded back to 30%, a result Wolbrecht and Campbell credit to the historic number of women who ran in the 2018 midterm elections. Increased faith in politics was especially pronounced among Democratic girls who lived in places where one or more women ran for the U.S. House, Senate, or governor. On the other hand, the trust remained stagnant in areas where there were no women candidates.

This “role model effect” is important not only for trust in government, but also for another critical element of democracy: civic engagement. As Wolbrecht and Cambell write, young women tend to become more politically engaged when they see women engaging in visible, viable campaigns, a finding bolstered by research from Tiffany Barnes, an associate professor of political science at the University of Kentucky. Using data from 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Barnes discovered a direct relationship between women’s representation and political engagement. “Having more women in office, and in visible political positions, is associated with more women engaging in activities like protest or talking about politics, and contacting a representative more frequently,” Barnes told Teen Vogue.

On a substantive policy level, the evidence shows women’s legislative effectiveness is greater than men’s. And although the backgrounds of women are far from monolithic, women overall bring different, valuable perspectives to the currently male-dominated process, Dittmar said. “We value the experience of someone who has had military experience or lived abroad, so, why wouldn’t we value the distinct experience women have in society?”

Want more from Teen Vogue ? Check this out: Elizabeth Warren Never Stood a Chance

Stay up-to-date on the 2020 election. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take !