what is representation types

• 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

READ: The dangers of an unchecked pardon power

• Link to twitter
• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to instagram

Proportional representation, explained

• Shaping the Democracy of Tomorrow
• Research & Analysis
• December 5, 2023

How our electoral system shapes our politics

Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats. Today, proportional representation is the most common electoral system among the world’s democracies. 

How is this different from what the United States uses? 

According to scholarly research, winner-take-all elections are causing or aggravating some of the most pressing problems undermining American democracy. These include: 

With winner-take-all, 51 percent (and sometimes less) of the electorate wins 100 percent of the representation in a district. This leads to unrepresentative outcomes. For example, despite a third of Massachusetts reliably voting Republican, Democrats control all nine U.S. House seats. Likewise, in Oklahoma, while a third of the electorate votes for Democrats, all five of its House seats are Republican.

Winner-take-all systems are uniquely susceptible to gerrymandering. But in proportional systems, manipulating district lines for partisan gain is often functionally impossible — multi-winner districts are simply too difficult to gerrymander. Want to get rid of gerrymandering? Adopt a system of proportional representation.

Winner-take-all elections uniquely disadvantage racial, ethnic, religious, and other political minorities, especially when they do not live in geographically concentrated areas and with district lines deliberately drawn around them. By contrast, minority representation tends to improve under proportional systems by allowing groups to win representation in proportion to their numbers , regardless of where they live.

Because winner-take-all elections make it easy for a single party to dominate in a district, they tend to depress political competition. As soon as a party can count on 55-60% of the vote, a district becomes “safe.” Except in a small number of swing districts, competition shifts to low-turnout primaries where candidates tend to be pulled to the extremes . By contrast, proportional systems tend to be more competitive: with more seats in contention per district, more parties and their candidates are incentivized to compete.

Winner-take-all systems tend to produce two-party systems, which are more likely to increase affective polarization — meaning voters from opposing parties don’t just disagree with one another, but come to reflexively distrust and dislike one another. Because multi-winner races create space for more than two parties, proportional representation tends to produce more fluid coalitions, which research finds helps to temper polarization .

By definition, winner-take-all elections are high stakes. Marginal differences in support for either of two parties can mean total victory or total defeat. Politicians are often incentivized to do everything they can to beat their opponents, even at the expense of problem solving, good governance, or maintaining democratic norms. Voters and politicians who lose in winner-take-all elections are less likely to trust democratic institutions , and more likely to resort to violence .

Researchers are especially concerned about the use of winner-take-all elections in highly polarized and diverse societies like the United States. As one global study of democratization concluded, “if any generalization about institutional design is sustainable,” it is that winner-take-all electoral systems “are ill-advised for countries with deep ethnic, regional, religious, or other emotional and polarizing divisions.”

‘[I]f any generalization about institutional design is sustainable,’ it is that winner-take-all electoral systems ‘are ill-advised for countries with deep ethnic, regional, religious, or other emotional and polarizing divisions.’ Larry Diamond, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation

Potential benefits of proportional representation

Varieties of proportional representation.

In practice, proportional representation comes in many different versions. Most fit into one of four categories. 

Open List 

Think: Voting for a candidate and their party

In open list systems, each political party has a slate of candidates running for office (as in a primary election), and voters choose a candidate from one of the lists. Parties are allocated seats in proportion to the total number of votes their candidates receive, and the candidates who receive the most votes are elected. For example, a voter may select one Democrat from a list of Democrats running. In a six-seat district, if the Democrats together win 50 percent of the vote, the three Democratic candidates with the most votes are elected.

Closed List

Think: Voting for a party, not for a candidate

In closed list systems, voters select a political party on a ballot rather than an individual candidate. Parties are allocated seats in proportion to the votes they receive, and candidates are seated in the order determined by the party itself. For example, a voter may select the Republican Party on the ballot, but not an individual candidate. In a six-seat district, if Republicans win 50 percent of the vote, the party is allocated three seats, and the top-three candidates on the party’s list are elected.

Mixed-Member Systems

Think: Proportional representation layered on top of single-member districts

Many countries use systems that blend components of winner-take-all and proportional representation, combining single-member districts with some number of additional seats allocated to parties proportionally. Voters make two choices: one for their single-winner district and one for a set of statewide seats allocated proportionally. For example, a given state could have three single-winner districts and three proportional seats. A party that gets 40% of the vote statewide could lose all three single-winner seats but still win one or two of the proportional seats.

Single Transferable Vote 

Think: Ranking candidate choices across the ballot

Some countries use a system where voters rank candidates, regardless of their party, and the top-ranked candidates are elected. Through successive rounds of ballot counting, votes are reallocated to lower preferences as candidates are either elected or eliminated. This goes on until the seats are filled. For example, if a voter’s first choice candidate comes in last, the candidate is eliminated and the vote is reallocated to the voter’s next preference in the next round of counting. Additionally, if a candidate gets more than the amount of votes needed to win a seat, the additional votes are also reallocated to the voters’ lower preferences.

It is clear that our winner-take-all system — where each U.S. House district is represented by a single person — is fundamentally broken. LETTER TO CONGRESS FROM 200+ POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, THE NEW YORK TIMES

Is proportional representation connected to ranked-choice voting?

Ranking candidates is a method of voting that is possible under both winner-take-all and proportional systems. While ranked-choice voting and proportional representation are compatible, they are also distinct reforms.

What about fusion voting?

Fusion voting, which allows multiple parties to nominate the same candidate and “fuse” their support, is distinct from proportional representation and generally is only used with single-member districts. However, the two reforms share many of the same goals, such as making it easier for more parties to form, permitting more options for voters, and enabling more fluid political coalitions. 

Learn more →

Won’t more parties just lead to more gridlock and chaos?

While certain proportional systems are designed in a way that can generate dozens of parties (which can be destabilizing), most do not. Research finds that modest multiparty activity can lead to more effective governance, while two polarized parties can lead to dangerous levels of gridlock, as well as destabilizing change from one government to the next.

How can this be implemented in Congress?

Adopting proportional representation for the U.S. House is possible through regular lawmaking. Congress could implement proportional representation, or rather, give states the ability to experiment with different versions, through legislation alone. No constitutional amendment is needed.

Can proportional representation work in a presidential system?

Proportional representation is just as common in countries with presidential systems as it is in countries with parliamentary systems. In fact, presidential systems are more likely to use proportional representation for their legislatures, while combining presidentialism with winner-take-all is a rarity found only in four countries (the U.S., Ghana, Liberia, and Sierra Leone). 

What about state and local elections?

Any lawmaking body, from national and state legislatures to city councils and school boards, can be elected proportionally. Just like for Congress, implementing proportional representation in state legislatures could increase competition and representation and decrease polarization and antidemocratic extremism. But importantly, it could also encourage the de-nationalization of politics and a return to more localized concerns. 

Is large-scale electoral system change politically possible?

While changing electoral systems is politically difficult, it is far from impossible. Indeed, most democracies around the world have changed their electoral systems at least once, if not more. Several notable examples of reform in recent decades — New Zealand, Japan, and others — help illustrate how change can happen.

How would proportional representation work with the Voting Rights Act?

As long as proportional representation leads to minority representation that is as equivalent or better than winner-take-all outcomes, it is compatible with existing voting rights law. And in most cases, it expands the possibilities for minority representation beyond what is possible under winner-take-all rules. 

How does proportional representation fix gerrymandering?

The more seats a district has, the harder that district is to gerrymander. Most multi-winner districts are functionally impossible to manipulate for partisan gain. With a lower threshold required to win each seat, voters can no longer be predictably “cracked” between districts or “packed” into one district with any real effect.

How would proportional representation impact constituent services?

We don’t know for sure. However, all voters are, today, already serviced by three legislators: a congressperson and two senators. Research finds that constituent services may improve, as representatives compete with each other to provide better service and voters can select and engage with representatives who best represent their community and interests. Under proportional representation, most voters could contact a representative for whom they voted . 

Related Content

What would proportional representation look like in a state legislature?

Authoritarianism, explained

• Defending the Rule of Law
• Protecting Elections
• Safeguarding the Public Square

Proportional Representation and the Voting Rights Act

• White Papers

Domestic deployment of the National Guard, explained

Relevant experts, grant tudor, policy advocate.

Link to person: Grant Tudor

Beau Tremitiere

Link to person: Beau Tremitiere

Ben Raderstorf

Link to person: Ben Raderstorf

Cerin Lindgrensavage

Link to person: Cerin Lindgrensavage

It can happen here. We can stop it.

Defeating authoritarianism is going to take all of us. Everyone and every institution has a role to play. Together, we can protect democracy.

Sign Up for Updates Sign Up for Updates

Explore Careers Explore Careers

How to Protect Democracy How to Protect Democracy

Mobile Menu Overlay

• 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

• [109.248.223.228]
• 109.248.223.228

Character limit 500 /500

Power and Minority Representation

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2023
• pp 9959–9965
• Cite this reference work entry

• Kenicia Wright 2  

17 Accesses

Active representation; Black; Descriptive representation; Latino; Passive representation; Political representation; Representative bureaucracy; Substantive representation

There are two types of representation – descriptive or passive representative refers to the level of similarity in descriptive characteristics, such as one’s race, between bureaucrats or politicians and their constituents, while substantive or active representation refers to whether bureaucrats or politicians pursue the interests of their constituents.

Introduction

Representation is a foundational component of democracy and a key piece of the processes of governance and administration. The percent of racial minorities – members of the public who identify Black, American Indian/Alaska native, Asian, and nonwhite Hispanics – is growing. According to the US Census Bureau in 2010, nearly 74% of America’s population were White, 14% were Black, nearly 2% identified as American Indian/Alaska native, and...

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
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abney FG, Hutcheson JD (1981) Race, representation, and trust: changes in attitudes after the election of a black mayor. Public Opin Q 45(1):91–101

Article   Google Scholar  

Banducci SA, Donovan T, Karp JA (2004) Minority representation, empowerment, and participation. J Polit 66(2):534–556

Bobo L, Gilliam FD (1990) Race, sociopolitical participation, and black empowerment. Am Polit Sci Rev 84(02):377–393

Bradbury MD, Kellough JE (2007) Representative bureaucracy: exploring the potential for active representation in local government. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(4):697–714

Dawson MC (1994) Behind the mule: race and class in African-American politics. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Google Scholar  

Gilliam FD, Kaufmann KM (1998) Is there an empowerment life cycle? Long-term black empowerment and its influence on voter participation. Urban Aff Rev 33(6):741–766

Griffin JD, Keane M (2006) Descriptive representation and the composition of African American turnout. Am J Polit Sci 50(4):998–1012

Kaiser Family Foundation (2015) Population estimates based on census bureau’s 2015 CPS

Mansbridge J (1999) Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “Yes”. J Polit 61(03):628–657

Meier KJ, Stewart J, England RE (1989) Race, class, and education: the politics of second-generation discrimination. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison

Mill JS (1862) Considerations on representative government. Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Pitkin HF (1967) The concept of representation. University of California Press, Berkeley

Selden SC (1997) The promise of representative bureaucracy: diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. ME Sharpe, Armonk

Thompson FJ (1976) Minority groups in public bureaucracies are passive and active representation linked? Adm Soc 8(2):201–226

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Political Science, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

Kenicia Wright

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenicia Wright .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

Ali Farazmand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Wright, K. (2022). Power and Minority Representation. In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_2524

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_2524

Published : 06 April 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-66251-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-66252-3

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

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

Types of Representation

Types of representation.

Trusteeship: the idea that representatives (MPs, for example) use their superior knowledge and experience to act for the people- they don’t just do what the people would want, instead, they try to act in their best interests, because the people may not know what is in their best interests. This has been argued to be an out-of-date way of viewing representation.

Mandate: this means ‘an instruction or command to govern’ and is sometimes used to describe the right to govern. By winning an election. A government has had its manifesto (set of policy proposals) approved by the public, so they have the right to carry out those policies. This has been argued to be a misleading way of describing representation in the UK, as most voters are unlikely to have read manifestos in detail. Once in power, there is little to stop a government from breaking or not fulfilling manifesto pledges.

Descriptive: the idea that MPs should literally represent the people, for example by being from a similar background to most of their constituents, and think in a similar way. This may lead to a representative with a very narrow interest base, however.

First-past-the-post (FPTP)

Types of electoral system

• Used in House of Commons (general) elections, and local elections in England and Wales
• Voters vote for a representative for a constituency
• Voters have one vote only
• The candidate with the most votes wins the constituency
• In the UK, whichever party wins an overall majority of constituencies can form a government
• This is a simple plurality system- whoever gets the most votes of any candidate wins. The winner does not have to get more votes than all other candidates put together

Example: 2015 General Election

Source: BBC News

__First-Past-The-Post: __Advantages

• It gives voters a clear choice between two parties with distinct programmes for government
• It establishes the constituency link between MPs and voters- this is good representation
• Winning parties can fulfil their manifesto pledges without the need to compromise in a coalition
• It allows for strong governments- governments have a healthy majority and can get things done
• It allows for stable governments- single-party governments are less likely to collapse, so provide certainty and stability
• Extremist parties are unlikely to get a foothold

First-Past-The-Post: Disadvantages

• It is not proportional- the percentage of seats won by parties does not reflect the percentage of the vote they received. This is undemocratic
• It creates lots of safe seats and wasted votes
• Governments win power with only 35-40% of the vote, so are not supported by most of the population
• It leads to few checks and balances on government power, as governments can easily pass legislation
• Power is concentrated too narrowly, and small parties do not get the level of representation their support merits

Assessment Question:

First Past the Post: How it is counted

To become an MP, a candidate simply needs the largest number of votes in their area. This is repeated in 650 constituencies across the country. As every MP will be elected with different levels of support, the proportion of seats a party gets in parliament will rarely reflect the proportion of votes the party received. Parties whose supporters are thinly spread out may get the largest number of votes in only one or two areas but might get millions across the whole country. Likewise, parties with supporters that are geographically concentrated may get fewer votes across the whole country but get the largest number of votes in more constituencies.

Features and effects

This tends to generate two large parties, as, without a geographical base, smaller parties find it harder to win seats. With a geographical base, parties that are small UK-wide can still do very well. For instance, in Scotland in 2015 the SNP won just under half the votes but won 95% of the seats providing a different view of Scottish public opinion than actually exists. As only votes that get an MP elected matter, parties need to prioritise specific voters to win seats.

First Past the Post creates safe seats, where so many of a party’s supporters live that there is no point campaigning, and marginal seats, that could change hands. Parties will design their policies to target voters in these marginal seats and spend the majority of their funds campaigning in them. However, as these seats are not necessarily representative of the rest of the country, voters in safe seat areas can feel politically neglected.

Constituency Representation

First Past the Post means that MPs can be elected on small proportions of the vote if they simply win the most votes amongst a fragmented field. In 2015 Belfast South was won with just 9,560 votes, or 24.5% of the total, a record low. It is common for MPs to be elected with less than half the support of their constituency.

Additionally, FPTP encourages tactical voting, where a seat may be contested between a candidate a voter dislikes, their favoured candidate and a candidate they like less than their favoured candidate but more than the first. If they know their favoured candidate might not win they may feel pressured to vote tactically for the other candidate in the hopes of beating the candidate they most dislike, so support may not be genuine. www.electoral-reform.org.uk

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

representation

Definition of representation

Examples of representation in a sentence.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'representation.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

15th century, in the meaning defined at sense 1

Phrases Containing representation

• proportional representation
• self - representation

Dictionary Entries Near representation

representant

representationalism

Cite this Entry

“Representation.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/representation. Accessed 8 Sep. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of representation, legal definition, legal definition of representation, more from merriam-webster on representation.

Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for representation

Nglish: Translation of representation for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of representation for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about representation

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, more commonly misspelled words, why does english have so many silent letters, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, popular in wordplay, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, 7 shakespearean insults to make life more interesting, birds say the darndest things, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), games & quizzes.

Learning Materials

• Business Studies
• Combined Science
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• English Literature
• Environmental Science
• Human Geography
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Models of Representation

Have you ever thought about what the role of politicians should be in representing you? Should they be able to make up their own minds, or should they just listen to the people they represent? The different ways that politicians can represent their voters are models of representation. 

Millions of flashcards designed to help you ace your studies

• Cell Biology

What criticism does the trustee model face?

The Burkean theory of representation is another name of what model of representation?

Why does the mandate model of representation have a large hold on the actions of MPs?

Which two models of representation are in direct contrast to one another?

Review generated flashcards

to start learning or create your own AI flashcards

Start learning or create your own AI flashcards

• Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights
• Comparative Politics
• Foundations of American Democracy
• Political Ideology
• Political Participation
• UK Government
• UK Politics
• Additional Member System
• Alliance Party Northern Ireland
• Alternative Vote System
• Class Dealignment
• Coalition Government
• Conservative Party
• Corporate Governance
• Democratic Unionist Party
• Electoral Systems
• First-Past-The-Post Voting
• General Elections UK
• Green Party
• Interest Groups
• Labour Party
• Liberal Democrats
• Marginal Seat
• Minority Government
• Norman Rule of England
• Parliamentary Sovereignty
• Partisan Dealignment
• Party List Proportional Representation
• Plaid Cymru
• Political Campaigns
• Pressure Groups
• Single Transferable Vote
• Suffrage Movement
• Supplementary Vote
• Think Tanks
• UK Political History
• UK Political Parties
• Voting Behaviour
• US Government Structure
• World Politics

There are several models of representation used in democratic countries. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages, strong points and blind spots. This article will highlight all of them and leave it to you to decide which model has more merit.

Models of representation meaning

In politics, representation is the process in which elected officials act on behalf of a group of people for a specific period of time. When we talk about representation, we usually mean it within the context of representative democracies. Representative democracies are democracies in which individuals (voters) elect an official to represent and act on behalf of their concerns and interests. This is in contrast to D irect Democracy , in which the individuals have the power to make their own decision instead of deferring to a representative.

So if politicians are representing their voters, how do they do this? This is the meaning of models of representation, they describe different ways in which representatives can and should represent their voters.

Models of Representation describe the role, behaviours, and actions elected officials play in representative democracies.

Features of models of representation

The key feature of models of representation is the provision of efficiency and a distinct representative. Models of representations in a representative democracy serve to ensure decisions can be made quickly and efficiently, and therefore there is minimal disruption to the operation of society.

If representation occurred through direct democracy, every single decision would have to be made through a referendum. Whilst referendums are occasionally used in representative democracies (such as the referendum for Brexit or Scottish Independence), if every single political decision had to be made via a referendum, this would not only be incredibly difficult to organise, but it would be very inefficient.

The features of models of representation are their provisions of representatives for the public. This representative acts as part of a collective, e.g. the House of Commons, the Welsh Parliament or the Scottish Parliament and can then make decisions on behalf of the electorate.

Models of Representation outline how these representatives will make decisions; decisions may be off the back of the representative's personal knowledge or in response to the needs of those who elected the representative.

Types of models of representation

There are several different types of models of representation, some of the main ones are the delegate model, trustee model, mandate model, and descriptive model.

Delegate model

The delegate model of representation is based on the assumption that those who are elected as representatives should not suggest, implement, or exercise their own personal judgment or preferences. Rather, delegates are expected to refer to the individuals that elected them in order to represent their opinions, views, and concerns without personal interference or input.

Put another way, in a delegate model the elected official is there to be the voice of those who elected them and must act in accordance with their constituents' wishes, regardless of their personal opinion or view on the subject.

For example, in a delegate model, if the delegate's constituents want to implement a policy that mandates all houses in their town be painted brown, the delegate must honour this position, regardless of whether the delegate thinks this is a bad idea and would make a formerly picturesque town unsightly and risk lose its appeal to tourists.

Trustee model

The trustee model of representation is in direct contrast to the delegate model. Whilst a delegate is elected to act on behalf of those that elect them without personal interference or judgment, a trustee is someone who is tasked with using their own knowledge, judgment, and expertise to make decisions. Constituents entrust the trustee with the power to make decisions that are for their benefit and view trustees as having the expertise to do so.

Returning to our previous example, in a trustee model of representation, if the constituents wanted to paint all the houses in their picturesque town brown, then the trustee would then be entrusted to weigh the merit of this proposal and has the autonomy to deny the proposal if they felt it would negatively impact the town's tourism potential.

Damage to the town's tourism industry may hurt the economy of the town the trustee has been elected to represent, so the trustee believes it is in the best interest of the townspeople to deny their request.

The trustee model also tends to be associated with conservatism because of its paternalistic nature. For more information on this, you can check out our articles on Conservatism and Paternalism.

The trustee model is also referred to as the Burkean model of representation due to it being supported by Edmund Burke in the House of Commons.

Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797) was a philosopher and Member of Parliament and one of the founders of conservativism. Burke served as an MP for Bristol in 1774 where he objected to the view that MPs should be delegates for the electorate. Burke instead advocated for a trustee model.

This was because Burke was a conscientious objecto r to the slave trade in Bristol, but the Bristol electorate was infavour of the lucrative slave trade. Burke believed the slave trade was wrong and therefore did not want to act in the wishes of the electorate. Burke believed MP's should not have to sacrifice their 'enlightened conscience' to act as a mouthpiece for the electorate.

There is an element of elitism that can be found in the Burkean model of representation, as there is the assumption that MPs have superior knowledge or an 'enlightened consciousness' and these elites are better positioned to be the ruling group.

Mandate model

The mandate model of representation, also known as party representation, has come about as a result of the rise and dominance of political parties in democracy and leadership. This has meant that instead of constituents voting based on the attributes of the individual that could potentially be representing them, they vote based on their party affiliations.

A mandate refers to an instruction from a superior body; therefore, this model refers to the idea that representatives are to act in line with party policies and must follow party ideals.

For example, within a mandate model, if you support the Liberal Democrats and their ideals, you may vote a liberal democrat as your constituent representative despite not having looked into this individual at all.

Descriptive model

Aside from the three main models of representation, there is also the descriptive or resemblance model. This model is less concerned about how representatives are selected and more about whether they resemble the group they claim to represent.

The descriptive model embraces the idea that in order to act as a representative for a group of people, the representatives must be a part of that group. This is because it is believed that a shared experience is required to identify with issues and act in the best way to solve them. This is an increasing topic of debate within UK politics.

There is the assumption that because many MPs are from middle-class backgrounds, the needs of working-class people in their constituencies cannot be accurately addressed and tackled by these representatives.

Examples of models of representation

After the 2016 Brexit referendum, which resulted in a slight majority of the country voting to leave the European Union, Prime minister David Cameron resigned and was replaced by Theresa May. Theresa May was charged with the task of pushing through a Brexit Deal; however, many members of her Conservative Party did not cosign this Brexit deal because they personally disagreed with it.

This is an example of the trustee model as these MPs were not following a party mandate, nor were they acting as a mouthpiece for their constituency, they were merely using their own knowledge and expertise to make a decision not to support the Brexit deal.

Whilst the trustee model is popular, certain situations arise that encourage a delegate model of representation, for example, the debate around the High Speed 2 (HS2).

The Conservative Party proposed building a billion-pound railway line that would better connect the north and midland areas of England to London. However, Boris Johnson himself, despite being a member and the leader of the Conservative Party , did not support the HS2. This was because Boris Johnson is, at times a delegate to his constituents, and his constituents did not want HS2 to go ahead.

In the UK, the mandate model of representation is also widespread due to the power of party whips . Often if an MP disagrees with their party, they may still vote for what the party wants, and if their constituency disagrees with the party, the MP may go against its constituents in favour of aligning itself with the party.

The best-case scenario is one in which what the MP thinks, what the party wants and what the constituency wants align, and therefore the trustee, delegate and mandate models all align.

Models of Representation - Key takeaways

• Representative democracies are democracies in which individuals elect an official to represent and act on their behalf.
• Models of representation describe the behaviour and actions of elected officials in representative democracies.
• A trustee is someone who is tasked with using their own knowledge, judgment, and expertise to make decisions on specific subject matters.
• In the delegate model of representation, those who are elected as representatives are not expected to exercise their own personal judgment or preferences.
• The mandate model refers to the idea that representatives are to act in line with party policies and must follow party ideals.
• Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 1774, accessed September 2022
• Fig. 3 - EdmundBurke1771 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EdmundBurke1771.jpg) by Joseph Reynolds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Reynolds) licensed by CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)

Flashcards in Models of Representation 5

It is elitist.

Which of the following is a key model of representation in a UK representative democracy?

Resemblance.

Because of the power of party whips.

Trustee and Delegate.

Learn with 5 Models of Representation flashcards in the free Vaia app

We have 14,000 flashcards about Dynamic Landscapes.

Already have an account? Log in

Frequently Asked Questions about Models of Representation

What is the meaning of models of representation?

Models of representation describe how eleceted officials should behave in representative democracies.

What is an example of model representation?

The three most common examples of models of representation are mandate, trustee and delegate. 

Why is representation important in  democracy ?

Representation is important in democracy as it serves to ensure the needs and the voices of the public are heard. 

What is the Burkean theory of representation?

The Burkean theory of representation is another term for the trustee model of representation and suggests representatives should use their own personal knowledge and experience to make decisions.

What is the principle of a model of representation?

The principle of a model of representation is to describe the behaviours of elected officials in representative democracies.

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

Join the Vaia App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!

Keep learning, you are doing great.

Discover learning materials with the free Vaia app

Vaia is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Vaia Editorial Team

Team Politics Teachers

• 10 minutes reading time
• Checked by Vaia Editorial Team

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of Vaia.

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our Vaia App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AI Study Assistant
• Study Planner
• Smart Note-Taking

Privacy Overview

• Britannica Homepage
• Ask the Editor
• Word of the Day
• Core Vocabulary
• Most Popular
• Browse the Dictionary
• My Saved Words

representation

• representation (noun)
• proportional representation (noun)
• He had no legal representation [=he did not have a lawyer] during the trial.
• Each state has equal representation in the Senate.
• The letters of the alphabet are representations of sounds.
• carved representations of flowers
• the film's heroic representation of America
• We discussed the representation of women in Jane Austen's novels.
• Her representation of the situation was very confusing.
• He was accused of making false representations .
• Our ambassador has made representations to their government.

• About Us & Legal Info
• Partner Program
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• Pronunciation Symbols

Look up a word, learn it forever.

Representation.

Other forms: representations

A representation acts or serves on behalf or in place of something. A lawyer provides legal representation for his client. A caricature is an exaggerated representation or likeness of a person.

Representation comes from the Latin repraesentare meaning "bring before, exhibit." A representation is an exhibit, whether it comes in the form of legal guidance or in the form of artistic expression. The act of representation has to do with replacing or acting on behalf of an original. Elected officials serve as the representation for their constituency — or at least it's supposed to work that way.

• noun the act of representing; standing in for someone or some group and speaking with authority in their behalf see more see less types: proportional representation representation of all parties in proportion to their popular vote type of: cooperation joint operation or action
• noun a presentation to the mind in the form of an idea or image synonyms: internal representation , mental representation see more see less types: show 44 types... hide 44 types... convergence , intersection , overlap a representation of common ground between theories or phenomena instantiation a representation of an idea in the form of an instance of it antitype a person or thing represented or foreshadowed by a type or symbol; especially a figure in the Old Testament having a counterpart in the New Testament stereotype a conventional or formulaic conception or image schema , scheme an internal representation of the world; an organization of concepts and actions that can be revised by new information about the world image , mental image an iconic mental representation interpretation , reading , version a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something phantasmagoria a constantly changing medley of real or imagined images (as in a dream) psychosexuality the mental representation of sexual activities percept , perception , perceptual experience the representation of what is perceived; basic component in the formation of a concept memory something that is remembered example , model a representative form or pattern appearance a mental representation blur , fuzz a hazy or indistinct representation abstractionism , unrealism a representation having no reference to concrete objects or specific examples concrete representation , concretism a representation of an abstract idea in concrete terms reminiscence a mental impression retained and recalled from the past crossroads a point where a choice must be made interface the overlap where two theories or phenomena affect each other or have links with each other imagination image , thought-image a mental image produced by the imagination reinterpretation a new or different meaning figure a unitary percept having structure and coherence that is the object of attention and that stands out against a ground ground a relatively homogeneous percept extending back of the figure on which attention is focused visual image , visual percept a percept that arises from the eyes; an image in the visual system recollection something recalled to the mind engram , memory trace a postulated biochemical change (presumably in neural tissue) that represents a memory confabulation (psychiatry) a plausible but imagined memory that fills in gaps in what is remembered screen memory an imagined memory of a childhood experience; hides another memory of distressing significance memory image a mental image of something previously experienced visual image , visualisation , visualization a mental image that is similar to a visual perception impression , mental picture , picture a clear and telling mental image auditory image a mental image that is similar to an auditory perception loadstar , lodestar something that serves as a model or guide epitome , image , paradigm , prototype a standard or typical example holotype , type specimen the original specimen from which the description of a new species is made microcosm a miniature model of something archetype , original , pilot something that serves as a model or a basis for making copies guide , template , templet a model or standard for making comparisons prefiguration an example that prefigures or foreshadows what is to come illusion , semblance an erroneous mental representation 3-D , 3D , three-D having a three-dimensional form or appearance front the outward appearance of a person embodiment , shape a concrete representation of an otherwise nebulous concept anagoge a mystical or allegorical interpretation (especially of Scripture) type of: cognitive content , content , mental object the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
• noun an activity that stands as an equivalent of something or results in an equivalent see more see less types: show 14 types... hide 14 types... model , modeling , modelling the act of representing something (usually on a smaller scale) dramatisation , dramatization a dramatic representation pageant , pageantry an elaborate representation of scenes from history, etc.; usually involves a parade with rich costumes figuration representing figuratively as by emblem or allegory diagramming , schematisation , schematization providing a chart or outline of a system pictorial representation , picturing visual representation as by photography or painting typification the act of representing by a type or symbol; the action of typifying simulation the act of imitating the behavior of some situation or some process by means of something suitably analogous (especially for the purpose of study or personnel training) guerrilla theater , street theater dramatization of a social issue; enacted outside in a park or on the street puppetry a stilted dramatic performance (as if by puppets) symbolising , symbolizing the act of representing something with a symbol delineation , depiction , portrayal representation by drawing or painting etc imaging , tomography (medicine) obtaining pictures of the interior of the body photography , picture taking the act of taking and printing photographs type of: activity any specific behavior
• noun a creation that is a visual or tangible rendering of someone or something see more see less types: show 120 types... hide 120 types... adumbration a sketchy or imperfect or faint representation audiogram a graphical representation of a person's auditory sensitivity to sound copy a thing made to be similar or identical to another thing cosmography a representation of the earth or the heavens creche a representation of Christ's nativity in the stable at Bethlehem cutaway , cutaway drawing , cutaway model a representation (drawing or model) of something in which the outside is omitted to reveal the inner parts display , presentation a visual representation of something document anything serving as a representation of a person's thinking by means of symbolic marks drawing a representation of forms or objects on a surface by means of lines ecce homo a representation (a picture or sculpture) of Jesus wearing a crown of thorns effigy , image , simulacrum a representation of a person (especially in the form of sculpture) illustration a visual representation (a picture or diagram) that is used make some subject more pleasing or easier to understand map a diagrammatic representation of the earth's surface (or part of it) model , simulation a representation of something (sometimes on a smaller scale) nomogram , nomograph a graphic representation of numerical relations objectification a concrete representation of an abstract idea or principle exposure , photo , photograph , pic , picture a representation of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide; recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material icon , ikon , image , picture a visual representation (of an object or scene or person or abstraction) produced on a surface pieta a representation of the Virgin Mary mourning over the dead body of Jesus projection the representation of a figure or solid on a plane as it would look from a particular direction rubbing representation consisting of a copy (as of an engraving) made by laying paper over something and rubbing it with charcoal shade a representation of the effect of shadows in a picture or drawing (as by shading or darker pigment) set , stage set representation consisting of the scenery and other properties used to identify the location of a dramatic production Station of the Cross a representation of any of the 14 stages in Christ's journey to Calvary avatar an electronic image representing a computer user anamorphism , anamorphosis a distorted projection or perspective; especially an image distorted in such a way that it becomes visible only when viewed in a special manner beefcake a photograph of a muscular man in minimal attire bitmap , electronic image an image represented as a two dimensional array of brightness values for pixels black and white , monochrome a black-and-white photograph or slide blueprint photographic print of plans or technical drawings etc. carbon , carbon copy a copy made with carbon paper cast , casting object formed by a mold charcoal a drawing made with a stick of black carbon material chart a map designed to assist navigation by air or sea cheesecake a photograph of an attractive woman in minimal attire chiaroscuro a monochrome picture made by using several different shades of the same color choropleth map a map that uses graded differences in shading or color or the placing of symbols inside defined areas on the map in order to indicate the average values of some property or quantity in those areas closeup a photograph or video taken at close range collage , montage a paste-up made by sticking together pieces of paper or photographs to form an artistic image contour map , relief map a map having contour lines through points of equal elevation daguerreotype a photograph made by an early photographic process; the image was produced on a silver plate sensitized to iodine and developed in mercury vapor delineation , depiction , limning , line drawing a drawing of the outlines of forms or objects diagram a drawing intended to explain how something works; a drawing showing the relation between the parts duplicate , duplication a copy that corresponds to an original exactly blowup , enlargement , magnification a photographic print that has been enlarged autotype , facsimile an exact copy or reproduction figure a model of a bodily form (especially of a person) float an elaborate display mounted on a platform carried by a truck (or pulled by a truck) in a procession or parade foil , transparency picture consisting of a positive photograph or drawing on a transparent base; viewed with a projector frame a single one of a series of still transparent pictures forming a cinema, television or video film globe a sphere on which a map (especially of the earth) is represented glossy a photograph that is printed on smooth shiny paper computer graphic , graphic an image that is generated by a computer Guy an effigy of Guy Fawkes that is burned on a bonfire on Guy Fawkes Day headshot a photograph of a person's head hologram , holograph the intermediate photograph (or photographic record) that contains information for reproducing a three-dimensional image by holography iconography the images and symbolic representations that are traditionally associated with a person or a subject god , graven image , idol a material effigy that is worshipped imitation something copied or derived from an original inset a small picture inserted within the bounds or a larger one clone , knockoff an unauthorized copy or imitation likeness , semblance picture consisting of a graphic image of a person or thing longshot a photograph taken from a distance map projection a projection of the globe onto a flat map using a grid of lines of latitude and longitude mechanical drawing scale drawing of a machine or architectural plan etc, microdot photograph reduced to the size of a dot (usually for purposes of security) miniature , toy a copy that reproduces a person or thing in greatly reduced size mock-up full-scale working model of something built for study or testing or display modification slightly modified copy; not an exact copy arial mosaic , mosaic , photomosaic arrangement of aerial photographs forming a composite picture mug shot , mugshot a photograph of someone's face (especially one made for police records) cyclorama , diorama , panorama a picture (or series of pictures) representing a continuous scene pen-and-ink a drawing executed with pen and ink photocopy a photographic copy of written or printed or graphic work photographic print , print a printed picture produced from a photographic negative photomicrograph a photograph taken with the help of a microscope architectural plan , plan scale drawing of a structure planetarium an apparatus or model for representing the solar systems plat a map showing planned or actual features of an area (streets and building lots etc.) plate a full-page illustration (usually on slick paper) print a copy of a movie on film (especially a particular version of it) quadruplicate any four copies; any of four things that correspond to one another exactly radiogram , radiograph , shadowgraph , skiagram , skiagraph a photographic image produced on a radiosensitive surface by radiation other than visible light (especially by X-rays or gamma rays) restoration a model that represents the landscape of a former geological age or that represents and extinct animal etc. reflection , reflexion the image of something as reflected by a mirror (or other reflective material) rendering perspective drawing of an architect's design replica , replication , reproduction copy that is not the original; something that has been copied road map a map showing roads (for automobile travel) roughcast a rough preliminary model CAT scan , scan an image produced by scanning bird-scarer , scarecrow , scarer , straw man , strawman an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds scene , scenery the painted structures of a stage set that are intended to suggest a particular locale doodle , scrabble , scribble an aimless drawing silhouette a drawing of the outline of an object; filled in with some uniform color silverpoint a drawing made on specially prepared paper with an instrument having a silver tip (15th and 16th centuries) sketch , study preliminary drawing for later elaboration sketch map a map drawn from observation (rather than from exact measurements) and representing the main features of an area shot , snap , snapshot an informal photograph; usually made with a small hand-held camera Snellen chart display consisting of a printed card with letters and numbers in lines of decreasing size; used to test visual acuity echogram , sonogram an image of a structure that is produced by ultrasonography (reflections of high-frequency sound waves); used to observe fetal growth or to study bodily organs spectacle an elaborate and remarkable display on a lavish scale spectrogram , spectrograph a photographic record of a spectrum stereo , stereoscopic photograph , stereoscopic picture two photographs taken from slightly different angles that appear three-dimensional when viewed together stick figure drawing of a human or animal that represents the head by a circle and the rest of the body by straight lines still a static photograph (especially one taken from a movie and used for advertising purposes) telephoto , telephotograph a photograph made with a telephoto lens telephotograph a photograph transmitted and reproduced over a distance time exposure a photograph produced with a relatively long exposure time trace , tracing a drawing created by superimposing a semitransparent sheet of paper on the original image and copying on it the lines of the original image triplicate one of three copies; any of three things that correspond to one another exactly vignette a photograph whose edges shade off gradually wax figure , waxwork an effigy (usually of a famous person) made of wax weather chart , weather map (meteorology) a map showing the principal meteorological elements at a given time and over an extended region wedding picture photographs of bride and groom and their friends taken at their wedding xerox , xerox copy a copy made by a xerographic printer scene , shot a consecutive series of pictures that constitutes a unit of action in a film letter , missive a written message addressed to a person or organization diorama a three-dimensional representation of a scene, in miniature or life-size, with figures and objects set against a background selfie a photograph that you take of yourself, typically with a digital camera pastel a drawing made with pastel sticks type of: creation an artifact that has been brought into existence by someone
• noun a performance of a play synonyms: histrionics , theatrical , theatrical performance see more see less types: matinee a theatrical performance held during the daytime (especially in the afternoon) type of: performance , public presentation a dramatic or musical entertainment
• noun a factual statement made by one party in order to induce another party to enter into a contract “the sales contract contains several representations by the vendor” see more see less type of: statement a message that is stated or declared; a communication (oral or written) setting forth particulars or facts etc
• noun a statement of facts and reasons made in appealing or protesting “certain representations were made concerning police brutality” see more see less type of: statement a message that is stated or declared; a communication (oral or written) setting forth particulars or facts etc
• noun the state of serving as an official and authorized delegate or agent synonyms: agency , delegacy see more see less types: free agency (sports) the state of a professional athlete who is free to negotiate a contract to play for any team legal representation personal representation that has legal status virus a harmful or corrupting agency type of: state the way something is with respect to its main attributes
• noun the right of being represented by delegates who have a voice in some legislative body see more see less type of: right an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature
• noun a body of legislators that serve in behalf of some constituency “a Congressional vacancy occurred in the representation from California” see more see less type of: body a group of persons associated by some common tie or occupation and regarded as an entity

Vocabulary lists containing representation

The Colonies–Reconstruction (1600s–1877)

Declare your independence and master these words related to the American Revolution. Learn all about the conflict between the colonists and the redcoats, from the Boston Tea Party to the British surrender at Yorktown. Explore causes of the war and review major battles, key historical figures, and the structure of the new American republic.

To punish Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament enforced acts that the colonies found intolerable. In response, they convened the First Continental Congress in 1774 to outline a list of grievances, rights, and resolves. Read the full text here . Here are links to our lists for other notable declarations: Declaration of Colonial Rights , Declaration of the Rights of Man , Declaration of the Rights of Woman , Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Sign up now (it’s free!)

Whether you’re a teacher or a learner, vocabulary.com can put you or your class on the path to systematic vocabulary improvement..

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of representation in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

representation noun ( ACTING FOR )

• Defendants have a right to legal representation and must be informed of that right when they are arrested .
• The farmers demanded greater representation in parliament .
• The main opposing parties have nearly equal representation in the legislature .
• The scheme is intended to increase representation of minority groups .
• The members are chosen by a system of proportional representation.
• admissibility
• extinguishment
• extrajudicial
• extrajudicially
• fatal accident inquiry
• federal case
• pettifoggery
• pettifogging
• plea bargain
• plea bargaining
• the Webster ruling
• walk free idiom
• witness to something

representation noun ( DESCRIPTION )

• anti-realism
• anti-realist
• complementary
• confederate
• naturalistically
• non-figurative
• non-representational
• representational
• symbolization
• ultrarealism

representation noun ( INCLUDING ALL )

• all manner of something idiom
• alphabet soup
• it takes all sorts (to make a world) idiom
• non-segregated
• odds and ends
• of every stripe/of all stripes idiom
• this and that idiom
• variety is the spice of life idiom
• wide choice

representation | Business English

Examples of representation, collocations with representation.

• representation

These are words often used in combination with representation .

Click on a collocation to see more examples of it.

Translations of representation

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

play for time

to delay until you are ready

Like a bull in a china shop: talking about people who are clumsy

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• representation (ACTING FOR)
• representation (DESCRIPTION)
• representation (INCLUDING ALL)
• make representations to sb
• Collocations
• Translations
• All translations

To add representation to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add representation to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

How does proportional representation work?

Posted on the 5th September 2024

Proportional representation (PR) is not a voting system in itself. Instead, it’s the idea that seats in parliament should reflect the proportion of votes cast; something which can be achieved through a variety of electoral systems.

As such, there’s not just one way that PR works. But it’s possible to understand what it might look like if it were implemented across Britain by getting to grips with the nuts and bolts of the different types of voting systems which do establish proportional representation.

It’s also worth considering examples of countries which use PR for their elections.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV)

The ERS’ preferred proportional voting system is the Single Transferable Vote (STV). For an example of STV in action, we can look no further than Scotland, where it’s used for local elections , as well as Northern Ireland, which uses STV for local elections and Northen Ireland Assembly elections.

Under STV, larger areas elect a small group of representatives, as opposed to one person being elected for a smaller area.

Ballot papers also differ: STV gives voters papers with a list of candidates which voters number in order of preference.

Then there’s the vote count. To get elected, a candidate needs to hit a vote quota. But it doesn’t end there: across several rounds of counts, surplus votes are re-allocated from both successful candidates and candidates who’ve missed the quota , using voters’ numbered preferences as a guide. Under this system, votes don’t go to waste if your favourite candidate doesn’t win, making it a far more proportional system.

By contrast, under the current system we use to elect our Westminster representatives, First Past the Post (FPTP), even if a large proportion of voters voted for a candidate, those votes will be wasted if a different candidate receives just a few more votes. There can only be one winner under FPTP.

Find out more about STV

The Additional Members System (AMS)

Another proportional system is the Additional Member System (AMS). In the UK, it’s used in Welsh Parliament , the London Assembly , and Scottish Parliament . AMS uses two ballot papers. One lists candidates standing to be your local MP; the other is a list of parties. A vote for a party translates to a vote to make more of a party’s pre-published list of candidates into MPs.

The first ballot paper is counted first, with the winner elected via FPTP.  The second ballot paper count elects ‘additional members’ based on the percentage of votes as well as the number of constituency members already elected. The result is that there’ll only be a single MP for a constituency, but parliament itself will be proportional.

Find out more about AMS

Party List Proportional Representation

Party list PR is used around the world. In fact , it’s the most popular voting system globally.

Under the party lists system, constituencies are larger, with a group of MPs are elected. Parties will publish a list of candidates, and voters will be able to select from a list of either parties or candidates themselves.

There are three main forms of party list election: closed list, open list, and semi-open list. Regardless of the method chosen, the result will be highly proportionate, with seats largely proportionate to votes cast.

Find out more about Party List PR

If we want fairer elections where votes truly matter, we need PR. Though not an exhaustive list, the mechanics of the three voting systems described above all enshrine proportionality – and therefore do a far better job than FPTP in making sure voters’ voices are heard.

Proportional Representation Around the World

Around the world, fair votes under proportional systems to elect representatives is commonplace. Taking note of how these elections play out is helpful in illustrating the workings of PR.

For example, the ERS’ favoured form of PR, STV, is used in Ireland and Malta. And party list PR is the world’s most popular system: it’s used in 74 countries across the world.

What’s striking is that Britain is in the minority, globally, in its use of First Past the Post. That means we are lagging behind when it comes to making sure every vote matters.

Learn more about the use of PR globally

Do you agree that we should use proportional representation to elect our Westminster representatives?

Read more posts..., the plans to remove all the hereditary peers are now in motion.

Today’s the day we’ve been waiting for, plans have been laid for the final 92 hereditary peers to lose their places in the Lords! For over 700 years the House of Lords has contained Peers...

Posted 05 Sep 2024

Does the House of Lords have any power?

This July, the King’s Speech outlined the government’s intention to remove hereditary seats from the House of Lords. This is a positive step toward reforming parliament’s second chamber, as it signals the beginning of the...

Posted 28 Aug 2024

• Skip to content
• Skip to search
• Staff portal (Inside the department)
• Student portal
• Key links for students

Other users

• Forgot password

Notifications

{{item.title}}, my essentials, ask for help, contact edconnect, directory a to z, how to guides, english k–12, understanding representation video.

Duration : 2 minutes 46 seconds

Transcript of Understanding representation

[characters are all sitting on chairs holding art books and pencils]

Erin – So what's that drawing assignment for today, Mr. Cranna?

Mr Cranna – Today, I want you to draw a hero. And go!

[Horns play]

Mahdi and Mr Cranna – Done.

Erin – Done.

Mr Cranna – Time to reveal our drawings. Erin – Wow they're all super different.

Mahdi – How? We all drew the same thing. A hero.

Mr Cranna – Our drawings are different because they're our individual representations of a hero. A representation is how we depict things or ideas, when we compose a text. In this case, a drawing. When we try to represent things in the world, we are influenced by our experiences, beliefs, cultural background and the audience for whom we're making the text.

Erin – Right, nah still don't get it.

Mr Cranna – Well, let's look at our drawings. I've used a werewolf to represent my hero, because I usually use werewolves as the main character in my comics and I always think of them as saving the day. But Erin, your representation of a hero is very different.

Erin – Yeah, well I don't think of werewolves as being heroic. I think of them as being scary.

Mahdi – So who's your hero, then?

Erin – Australian Paralympian, Jocelyn Neumiller. She's a para-canoest and competed in the Rio Paralympics.

Mr Cranna – Why have you chosen her as your representation of a hero?

Erin – Because she's got discipline and she competes in a very hard sport at the highest level.

Mahdi – Well my representation of a hero isn't a werewolf because I'm pretty sure I'm allergic. And it isn't of a sports star either, because I'm allergic to sports as well.

Erin – Then who is it?

Mahdi – It's my grandmother. My Tata's is my hero because she loves me no matter how many times I get things wrong and she gives the best hugs.

Mr Cranna – See how our representations the same thing, a hero can be so different. My representation of a hero is someone who saves the day in my stories. Erin's, is someone who is disciplined. While, Mahdi sees a hero, as someone who provides unconditional love.

Mahdi – Actually, Mr. Cranna. I've got a new representation of a hero, now.

Mr Cranna – You do?

Mahdi – Yeah, this apple.

Erin – How can an apple be representation of a hero?

Mahdi – Cause it's about to save me from my hunger.

End of transcript

Related resource

• Textual concepts representation poster (PDF 143 KB)

Related reading

Please note:

English K-10 Syllabus © 2012 Copyright NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) for and on behalf of the Crown in right of the State of New South Wales.

English Textual Concepts and Learning Processes, and Related Syllabus Content © State of New South Wales, Department of Education, 2017 Learning and Teaching Directorate

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Newsletters
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides
• Labor Day sales

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Online checking
• High-yield savings
• Money market
• Home equity loan
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Options pit
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard
• Buying Guides

Tech Buying Advice

• Best noise-cancelling wireless headphones
• Best outdoor speakers
• Best tablets
• Best wireless earbuds

‘Seeking Mavis Beacon’ Uncovers The Truth Behind The Black Woman Who Taught A Generation To Type

In the new investigative documentary Seeking Mavis Beacon , director Jazmin Jones and producer Olivia McKayla Ross offer a unique exploration of technology, representation and digital identity for Black millennials.

For many, their first introduction to the keyboard was through Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing , the computer software featuring a beautiful, seemingly successful Black woman as the face and guide to correctly using the QWERTY typing system. As technology progressed, Mavis’ affirming voice and boxy blazer became a distant memory, replaced by Siri’s robotic voice and Alexa’s heartless engagement.

“This character has had a big impact on our culture,” Jones told Blavity’s Shadow and Act in a recent interview.

Jones pointed out that Mavis Beacon was one of the first educational-based software programs that was anthropomorphized, meaning it had human characteristics or behaviors associated with it. She emphasized its success by revealing the most up-to-date sales numbers: Over 10 million copies of the typing software have been sold worldwide.

Jones referred to her producer’s revelation of Mavis being the “ Henrietta Lacks of technology” and serving as the prototype for “servile femme bots” such as Siri, Cortana and Alexa.

“If we are going to humanize our technology, let’s do it through the image of a woman, and the specific image of a Black woman,” Jones said.

She later added. “We absolutely have to unpack the intersectional identity politics of it all.”

Though Mavis Beacon was not an actual person, the face of the software was. Her name was Renee L’Esperance, and she was a Haitian model who was discovered while working at Saks Fifth Avenue in Los Angeles.

According to the documentary, she retired to the Caribbean after her image was used to revolutionize educational software. And like many stories of Black images or faces used throughout history, L’Esperance’s compensation did not equal her impact. She was only paid $500 for her work and didn’t get to share any royalties from the game’s success.

“When Renee agreed to model for the software, they hadn’t named it. So even when she consented to do this modeling, she didn’t know she would be named Beacon,” said Ross.

While the topic of fair compensation was one issue, the documentary also highlighted how L’Esperance being referred to as Mavis Beacon is an accurate representation of the mindless erasure of Black people in the creative and creator roles in technology.

“I’m sure the developers didn’t know that her last name, “L’Esperance,” means hope,” the producer said.

With FBI-worthy detective work, Ross and Jones give life and voice to Mavis Beacon. The two even set up a hotline for people to call in with tips, giving the feeling that a real Mavis Beacon may appear at the end of this documentary.

Unsurprisingly, viewers learn that the character Mavis Beacon was the creation of three white men: Les Crane, Walt Bilofsky and Mike Duffy.

Their company, The Software Toolworks, Inc., launched Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing in 1987.

As viewers watch Jones and Ross unfold a forgotten mystery, the two do a great job not to villanize the developers but to expose the truth of representation in technology and the digital space for Black people.

“I’m watching both Olivia and I also be looked to as authorities, and people are asking us, ‘What’s the future of tech? What’s the future of AI? And it’s like, whoa!'” said Jones.

She added, “This film is very polemic. But also, I don’t think I realized until a few days ago — in addition to this being a coming-of-age movie and an investigation, this is an advocacy film, and we are advocating for the future of tech that we want, and that’s a satisfying byproduct.”

Seeking Mavis Beacon  is in select theaters now with expansion soon.

An official website of the United States Government

• Kreyòl ayisyen
• Search Toggle search Search Include Historical Content - Any - No Include Historical Content - Any - No Search
• Menu Toggle menu
• INFORMATION FOR…
• Individuals
• Business & Self Employed
• Charities and Nonprofits
• International Taxpayers
• Federal State and Local Governments
• Indian Tribal Governments
• Tax Exempt Bonds
• FILING FOR INDIVIDUALS
• How to File
• When to File
• Where to File
• Update Your Information
• Get Your Tax Record
• Apply for an Employer ID Number (EIN)
• Check Your Amended Return Status
• Get an Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN)
• File Your Taxes for Free
• Bank Account (Direct Pay)
• Payment Plan (Installment Agreement)
• Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS)
• Your Online Account
• Tax Withholding Estimator
• Estimated Taxes
• Where's My Refund
• What to Expect
• Direct Deposit
• Reduced Refunds
• Amend Return

Credits & Deductions

• INFORMATION FOR...
• Businesses & Self-Employed
• Earned Income Credit (EITC)
• Child Tax Credit
• Clean Energy and Vehicle Credits
• Standard Deduction
• Retirement Plans

Forms & Instructions

• POPULAR FORMS & INSTRUCTIONS
• Form 1040 Instructions
• Form 4506-T
• POPULAR FOR TAX PROS
• Form 1040-X
• Circular 230

Understanding tax return preparer credentials and qualifications

More in tax pros.

• Enrolled agents
• Annual Filing Season Program participants
• Enrolled retirement plan agents
• Certified Professional Employer Organization (CPEO)
• Enrolled actuaries
• E-file providers
• Modernized e-File

Any tax professional with an IRS preparer tax identification number (PTIN) is authorized to prepare federal tax returns. However, tax professionals have differing levels of skills, education and expertise.

An important difference in the types of practitioners is “representation rights.” Here is guidance on each credential and qualification:

Unlimited representation rights: Enrolled agents, certified public accountants, and attorneys have unlimited representation rights before the IRS. Tax professionals with these credentials may represent their clients on any matters including audits, payment/collection issues, and appeals.

• Enrolled agents – Licensed by the IRS. Enrolled agents are subject to a suitability check and must pass a three-part Special Enrollment Examination, which is a comprehensive exam that requires them to demonstrate proficiency in federal tax planning, individual and business tax return preparation, and representation. They must complete 72 hours of continuing education every 3 years. Learn more about the Enrolled Agent Program .  
• Certified public accountants – Licensed by state boards of accountancy, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Certified public accountants have passed the Uniform CPA Examination. They have completed a study in accounting at a college or university and also met experience and good character requirements established by their respective boards of accountancy. In addition, CPAs must comply with ethical requirements and complete specified levels of continuing education in order to maintain an active CPA license. CPAs may offer a range of services; some CPAs specialize in tax preparation and planning.  
• Attorneys – Licensed by state courts, the District of Columbia or their designees, such as the state bar. Generally, they have earned a degree in law and passed a bar exam. Attorneys generally have on-going continuing education and professional character standards. Attorneys may offer a range of services; some attorneys specialize in tax preparation and planning.

Limited representation rights: Some preparers without one of the above credentials have limited practice rights. They may only represent clients whose returns they prepared and signed, but only before revenue agents, customer service representatives, and similar IRS employees, including the Taxpayer Advocate Service. They cannot represent clients whose returns they did not prepare and they cannot represent clients regarding appeals or collection issues even if they did prepare the return in question. Tax return preparers with limited representation rights include:

• Annual filing season program participants – This voluntary program recognizes the efforts of return preparers who are generally not attorneys, certified public accountants, or enrolled agents. It was designed to encourage education and filing season readiness. The IRS issues an Annual Filing Season Program record of completion to return preparers who obtain a certain number of continuing education hours in preparation for a specific tax year.  
• Beginning with returns filed after December 31, 2015, only Annual Filing Season Program participants have limited practice rights. Learn more about this program .  
• PTIN holders – Tax return preparers who have an active preparer tax identification number, but no professional credentials and do not participate in the Annual Filing Season Program, are authorized to prepare tax returns. Beginning January 1, 2016, this is the only authority they have. They have no authority to represent clients before the IRS (except regarding returns they prepared and filed December 31, 2015, and prior).

Directory of federal tax return preparers with credentials and select qualifications: To help taxpayers determine return preparer credentials and qualifications, the IRS has a public directory containing certain tax professionals. The searchable, sortable database includes the name, city, state, and zip code of attorneys, CPAs, enrolled agents, enrolled retirement plan agents, and enrolled actuaries with valid PTINs for 2022, as well as Annual Filing Season Program Record of Completion recipients.

Reminder: Everyone described above must have an IRS issued preparer tax identification number (PTIN) in order to legally prepare your tax return for compensation. Make certain your preparer has one and enters it on your return filed with the IRS. (They are not required to enter it on the copy they provide you.)

Tax return preparers who have PTINs but are not listed in the directory may provide quality return preparation services, but choose any return preparer wisely. Always inquire about their education and training.