This essay examines Jane Mansbridge's 2003 article "Rethinking Representation," which challenges conventional assumptions about how elected officials should relate to their constituents. The paper briefly introduces the United States as a representative republic rather than a pure democracy, then summarizes Mansbridge's four models of legislative representation: promissory, anticipatory, gyroscopic, and surrogate. It considers how both voters and legislators evolve over a term, how elected officials can shape public opinion through education or manipulation, and what distinguishes legitimate policy shifts from deception. The essay concludes that while broken promises are a legitimate concern, changing circumstances can justify divergence between campaign commitments and legislative action.
People often mislabel the United States as a democracy. In the truest sense of the word, that characterization is not entirely accurate. The United States primarily functions as a representative republic: people are elected through a democratic process, but those elected can technically vote and act as they wish once in office. Other than being removed via the next election, voters have very little recourse beyond that. As such, voters extend their faith toward a person who may or may not follow through on what the candidate stated they would do, or on what voters expect them to do. While the representative republic model has served the United States reasonably well over the years, there are valid questions about whether this model should persist or whether it should be altered in favor of something more effective.
The analysis in this essay centers on an article by Jane Mansbridge, authored in November 2003. The focal point of her work is the idea that there is a natural ebb and flow to how legislators relate to their constituents. Concurrent with that, there is substantial discussion about what it means to be a "good legislator." There appears to have been a divergence between the accepted answer to that question and the current empirical data underlying it, given modern realities and contexts. When it comes to candidates and the promises they make, this dynamic can be referred to as promissory representation — a model that focuses on what candidates say they will do and what they actually do after being elected. The underlying idea is to compare what was promised with what ultimately happened (Mansbridge, 2003).
Beyond promissory representation, Mansbridge identifies three additional models: anticipatory, gyroscopic, and surrogate. Anticipatory representation is largely what the name implies — rather than simply reacting to constituents' current expressed desires, politicians focus on what will likely be wanted or needed by the time the next election cycle arrives. Gyroscopic representation occurs when a representative draws on his or her own background and judgment, or common sense, when making decisions. Finally, surrogate representation refers to the representation of people who fall outside the legislator's assigned district.
Each model reflects a different logic of accountability and a different relationship between the elected official and the public. Together, they suggest that representation is not a single, fixed concept but a layered and evolving practice shaped by institutional context and individual judgment.
Regardless of which model applies, it must be recognized that both voters and their representatives will change over the course of a term. What a legislator supports at a given moment can differ entirely from what that same legislator supports later. The same is equally true of voters. Similarly, the positions taken by an elected official can be anticipatory in relation to how public opinion will shift on its own over time.
Furthermore, the actions of an elected official can themselves shape public opinion. This influence can take two distinct forms. In one form, an education dynamic emerges, whereby voters learn about an issue and form an opinion based on the information provided. In the other form, a more coercive dynamic takes hold, in which people are pressured or manipulated through emotionally charged language and framing. To use a concrete example, a politician speaking to voters about a foreign conflict at a factual, informational level is likely educating the public. However, if that same representative speaks about how children are being harmed, condemns U.S. policy in sweeping moral terms, and uses emotionally loaded rhetoric, the communication moves closer to political manipulation (Mansbridge, 2003).
"How both parties evolve and influence each other"
Mansbridge, J. (2003). Rethinking representation. APSR, 97(04), 515–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055403000856
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.