Making Constituencies

Introduction : responsiveness in reverse -- In defense of mobilization -- From the bedrock norm to the constituency paradox -- Can the realist remain a democrat? -- Realism for democrats -- Manipulation : How will I know it when I see it? And should I worry when I do?-- Debating constructivism and democracy in 1970s France -- Radical democracy and the value of plurality -- Conclusion.

Public division is not new; in fact, it is the lifeblood of politics, and political representatives have constructed divisions throughout history to mobilize constituencies. Since the turn of the twenty-first century, the idea of a divided United States has become commonplace. In the wake of the 2020 election, some commentators warned that the American public was the most divided it has been since the Civil War. Political scientists, political theorists, and public intellectuals have suggested that uninformed, misinformed, and disinformed voters are at the root of this division. Some are simply unwilling to accept facts or science, which makes them easy targets for elite manipulation. It also creates a grass-roots political culture that discourages cross-partisan collaboration in Washington. Yet, manipulation of voters is not as grave a threat to democracy in America as many scholars and pundits make it out to be. The greater threat comes from a picture that partisans use to rally their supporters: that of an America sorted into opposing camps so deeply rooted that they cannot be shaken loose and remade. Making Constituencies proposes a new theory of representation as mobilization to argue that divisions like these are not inherent in society, but created, and political representatives of all kinds forge and deploy them to cultivate constituencies.

In virtually every democratic nation in the world, political representation is defined by where citizens live. In the United States, for example, Congressional Districts are drawn every 10 years as lines on a map. Why do democratic governments define political representation this way? Are territorial electoral constituencies commensurate with basic principles of democratic legitimacy? And why might our commitments to these principles lead us to endorse a radical alternative: randomly assigning citizens to permanent, single-member electoral constituencies that each looks like the nation they collectively represent? Using the case of the founding period of the United States as an illustration, and drawing from classic sources in Western political theory, this book describes the conceptual, historical, and normative features of the electoral constituency. As an institution conceptually separate from the casting of votes, the electoral constituency is little studied. Its historical origins are often incorrectly described. And as a normative matter, the constituency is almost completely ignored. Raising these conceptual, historical and normative issues, the argument culminates with a novel thought experiment of imagining how politics might change under randomized, permanent, national electoral constituencies. By focusing on how citizens are formally defined for the purpose of political representation, The Concept of Constituency thus offers a novel approach to the central problems of political representation, democratic legitimacy, and institutional design.

This volume employs a comparative approach to cast light on representation and representative processes from a communications perspective. It focuses on online constituency communication, aiming to provide a perspective from which to empirically study the changes taking place in the relationship between citizens and their representatives. The (hyper)mediatisation of politics and society is here considered a relevant enabling factor, because it creates the conditions leading to change in the nature of democratic processes. The chapters discuss Podemos, the Lega, Law and Justice, and the Five-star Movement as good examples of this phenomenon. Populist and nationalist forces have emerged as bottom-up and top-down entities aiming to embody the will of the people, or to push for democratic processes to be more inclusive. Until now, however, the intersection between populist and nationalist discourses and the related question of representation have been largely ignored. By analysing the transformations that have taken place in MPs’ communication practices in non-election periods, the contributors illuminate how social media is affecting MPs’ communication and examine the strains in the relationship between executives and legislatures that populist and nationalist parties exploit.

Accompanying CD-ROM contains ... "appendices - notes."--CD-ROM label.

Your Voice at City Hall answers a major question of urban politics and government: "What difference does it make if city councils are elected at-large or by geographically defined districts or wards?" During the past fifteen years, numerous American cities, particularly those in the South and Southwest, have witnessed efforts to replace at-large councils with district systems. Prior studies have reported that geographically concentrated minority groups are more likely to win council seats under districts. Heilig and Mundt demonstrate conclusively the minority advantage under districts, and they go beyond the questions addressed in existing research to see what actually happened in ten cities that adopted districts. Through two years of intensive investigation they have determined the effects of districts on local politics, council-constituency interactions, the procedures of council decision-making, and outcomes of those decisions. The result is an important theoretical and empirical contribution to our understanding of urban politics and of representation in general.

This study may be the most sophisticated statistical study of legislative voting now in print. The author asks why legislators, especially U.S. senators, vote as they do. Are they influenced by their constituencies, party, committee leaders, the President? By taking a relatively short time span, the years 1961 to 1963, the author is able to give us answers far beyond any we have had before, and some rather surprising ones at that. Constituencies played a different, but more important role in senators' voting than earlier studies have shown. Senators appeared to be responding both to the opinion held by their constituents on different issues and to the intensity with which these opinions were held. On the interrelation of constituencies and party, Mr. Jackson finds that Republicans and southern Democrats were particularly influenced by their voters. The clearest cases of leadership influence were among the non-southern members of the Democratic Party. Western Republicans, on the other hand, rejected the leadership of party members for that of committee leaders. Finally, on Presidential leadership, Mr. Jackson shows that John F. Kennedy influenced senators only during the first two years of his administration. All of these findings challenge conventional wisdom and are bound to influence future work in legislative behavior.

For at least two centuries, democratic representation has been at the center of debate. Should elected representatives express the views of the majority, or do they have the discretion to interpret their constituents’ interests? How can representatives balance the desires of their parties and their electors? What should be done to strengthen the representation of groups that have been excluded from the political system? Representative democracy itself remains frequently contested, regarded as incapable of reflecting the will of the masses, or inadequate for today’s global governance. Recently, however, this view of democratic representation has been under attack for its failure to capture the performative and constructive elements of the process of representation, and a new literature more attentive to these aspects of the relationship between representatives and the represented has arisen. In Creating Political Presence, a diverse and international group of scholars explores the implications of such a turn. Two broad, overlapping perspectives emerge. In the first section, the contributions investigate how political representation relates to empowerment, either facilitating or interfering with the capacity of citizens to develop autonomous judgment in collective decision making. Contributions in the second section look at representation from the perspective of inclusion, focusing on how representative relationships and claims articulate the demands of those who are excluded or have no voice. The final section examines political representation from a more systemic perspective, exploring its broader environmental conditions and the way it acquires democratic legitimacy.

Like many areas of study within Political Science, the influence of constituency on congressional voting is often assumed, but not often demonstrated empirically. Some studies claim constituency has a strong impact; others claim is it nonexistent. In an attempt to find an overall pattern in the literature, I examine numerous studies of congressional decision-making. Specifically I conduct a meta-analysis of 31 studies of constituency influence on congressional voting. I introduce theoretical arguments concerning the impact of constituency, ideology, and party identification on the voting decisions made by members of Congress. I introduce the concept of meta-analysis and describe the specific steps taken in conducting this analysis of congressional voting. The results indicate that constituency influence is a significant predictor of congressional voting, but that ideology and party identification demonstrate a stronger effect than constituency.