Search

In recent times, representation theory has become one of the most productive and interesting sub-fields in democratic theory. Arguably, the most important theoretical innovation are the so-called 'constructivist' approaches to political representation. These approaches play a central role in Creating Political Presence: The New Politics of Democratic Representation and The Constructivist Turn in Political Representation, two impressive volumes that take stock of the state of the art in representation theory. I discuss the two volumes by focusing on three broader and interconnected themes: the problem that constructivism is meant to respond to, the tendency of representation theorists to expand the possibilities of representation as broadly as possible, and the normative aspects of political representation and how constructivists deal with them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This short piece discusses Hélène Landemore's proposal of an 'open democracy', as outlined in her recent book Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Acknowledging the value of Landemore's radical and ambitious proposals, I draw attention to a number of shortcomings and blind spots that have to do with how the case for an 'open democracy' is made: through an unduly brief and dismissive treatment of political parties; a methodological insensitivity to empirical variations of democratic performance and citizens' evaluations of the latter; a failure to distinguish between higher and ordinary law-making in the discussion of the central Icelandic case; and, finally, a surprising concession that realising an open democracy is all but infeasible in established constitutional democracies. If open democracy is to be an attractive ideal, these issues must arguably be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of representation is a major research field in quantitative political science. Since the early 2000s, it has been accompanied by a range of important conceptual innovations by political theorists working on the topic. Yet, although many quantitative scholars are familiar with the conceptual literature, even the most complex quantitative studies eschew engaging with the "new wave" of more sophisticated concepts of representation that theorists have developed. We discuss what we take to be the main reasons for this gap between theory and empirics, and present four novel conceptions of representation that are both sensitive to theorists' conceptual impulses and operationalizable for quantitative scholars. In doing so, we advance an alternative research agenda on representation that moves significantly beyond the status quo of the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In democratic theory and practice, it has become a popular view that designed deliberative mini‐publics can effectively counteract failures of representative democratic institutions. But when should mini‐publics be deployed, and how should they be designed? This article develops a framework for thinking about these questions. It argues that when representative democratic institutions ensure the empowerment of inclusions, enable the formation of collective agendas and wills, and are capable of translating those agendas into binding decisions, mini‐publics should be used sparingly and as complementary initiatives; the less representative institutions are able to serve these functions, the more mini‐publics should gain independence and standing to correct these problems. The article shows how this can be operationalised in light of two key institutional design issues – coupling and authority – and discusses some empirical examples that foreground the empirical leverage offered by the suggested framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Here, argue Rosenbluth and Shapiro, decentralization has led - as it usually does - to the party being captured by an "intense minority;" namely, the radical left-wing activist base that is ultimately out of touch with what most voters want. In Rosenbluth and Shapiro's view, the political system that has been most successful in establishing and maintaining such strong parties is the very British Westminster model that they consider to be now in decline because of decentralizing tendencies at the party level. Second, a crucial question that the book hardly engages with at all is whether the strong political parties that Rosenbluth and Shapiro wish to see resurrected would actually stand a chance today of mobilizing voters in the ways that were taken for granted in the 1960s or 1970s, when, according to the two authors, political parties were still working reasonably well. [Extracted from the article]