Theories of Representation

Earlier this evening a township supervisor told me, “I really don’t care about the next election--I vote the way my gut feeling tells me is right.”  This morning I received a letter, at taxpayers’ expense, from Congressman Lou Barletta explaining why he really wasn’t gutting Medicare, although that is what he voted to do when he supported the Ryan budget proposal.

Time for a political science lesson.  Sit down and learn this.  It will be on the quiz.  

Most of American democracy is representative democracy.  We don’t govern ourselves directly; we elect people to carry on the work of government.  How those representatives should behave is subject to interpretation.

The delegate theory of representation says an elected official should do what his or her constituents want him or her to do.  If 60% of the constituents oppose the war in Afghanistan, the representative should also oppose the war in Afghanistan.  Some problems do arise.  A minority may favor the war with great intensity while the majority may favor it, but not with much passion.  On many issues the majority of voters won’t have an informed opinion, or the constituents may be split down the middle.  Nevertheless, a delegate tries to do what constituents desire.

The trustee theory was first enunciated by Edmund Burke in the late 1700s.  A member of the British parliament, Burke voted against his constituents’ wishes and wrote a letter to them explaining why.  He told them they elected him to use his best judgment, that he was their “trustee,” and that he would vote the way he believed was right.  The township supervisor I spoke to earlier was obviously a follower of Burke.

A more recent role for representatives is that of politico.  The politico does whatever he or she needs to do get reelected.  If the oil industry will give large campaign donations for a vote to continue tax breaks and subsidies, vote with the oil industry even if you think it is wrong and even if your constituents oppose it.  Politicos are often noted for “bringing home the bacon,” i.e., getting grants for bridges, community centers, and other projects in the home district.  They are not great leaders.  I’ll bet you can think of an example.

We need another category, and that is the hack.  This is the representative who does not think for himself or herself, does not care about the constituents, and does not have the clout to bring home the bacon, but does owe his or her election to the party.  This representative is usually not very bright but will do whatever the legislative leadership demands.  You can probably think of one or two of these as well.