Taking Virtual Representation Seriously

Joseph Fishkin
{"title":"Taking Virtual Representation Seriously","authors":"Joseph Fishkin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3118775","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Virtual representation-the representation of people who cannot vote-has come to occupy a distinctly disfavored position in modern conceptions of democracy. For most of our history, this was not the case. Before women's suffrage, most U.S. citizens were represented only virtually. Today, virtual representation remains a substantial part of our democratic order, but it is a part that we tend to ignore. For instance, about a quarter of all U.S. citizens cannot vote because they are children. They, and others who cannot vote, are virtually represented. \nThis Article argues, first, that virtual representation is an inevitable part of any democratic system; second, that it has value, even if it is generally second-best to actual representation; and third, that as long as we are going to do this, we ought to try to do it as well as we can. The Article traces the origins of the American aversion to virtual representation, then begins to build an account of how some forms of virtual representation are better or worse than others. Surprisingly, under conditions of sufficient geographic segregation along various politically salient dimensions, it turns out that our system of electing nearly all representatives from single-member districts may actually ensure non-voters tolerably good virtual representation. That is, as long as we count all the people, not just the voters, for purposes of apportionment-and similarly, as long as we count prisoners at their last address rather than at the location of their prison (this is the problem of so-called \"prison gerrymandering\"). \nFinally, the Article argues that the United States Constitution itself constructs a mixed system of actual and virtual representation. The question of the reach of this federal constitutional model-and in what contexts, if any, it mandates the current practice of drawing districts with equal numbers of people, rather than equal numbers of voters-is likely to come before the Supreme Court sometime after the 2020 Census.","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":"59 1","pages":"1681"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3118775","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Virtual representation-the representation of people who cannot vote-has come to occupy a distinctly disfavored position in modern conceptions of democracy. For most of our history, this was not the case. Before women's suffrage, most U.S. citizens were represented only virtually. Today, virtual representation remains a substantial part of our democratic order, but it is a part that we tend to ignore. For instance, about a quarter of all U.S. citizens cannot vote because they are children. They, and others who cannot vote, are virtually represented. This Article argues, first, that virtual representation is an inevitable part of any democratic system; second, that it has value, even if it is generally second-best to actual representation; and third, that as long as we are going to do this, we ought to try to do it as well as we can. The Article traces the origins of the American aversion to virtual representation, then begins to build an account of how some forms of virtual representation are better or worse than others. Surprisingly, under conditions of sufficient geographic segregation along various politically salient dimensions, it turns out that our system of electing nearly all representatives from single-member districts may actually ensure non-voters tolerably good virtual representation. That is, as long as we count all the people, not just the voters, for purposes of apportionment-and similarly, as long as we count prisoners at their last address rather than at the location of their prison (this is the problem of so-called "prison gerrymandering"). Finally, the Article argues that the United States Constitution itself constructs a mixed system of actual and virtual representation. The question of the reach of this federal constitutional model-and in what contexts, if any, it mandates the current practice of drawing districts with equal numbers of people, rather than equal numbers of voters-is likely to come before the Supreme Court sometime after the 2020 Census.
认真对待虚拟表示
虚拟代表——不能投票的人的代表——在现代民主概念中已经占据了明显不受欢迎的地位。在我们的大部分历史中,情况并非如此。在妇女获得选举权之前,大多数美国公民只能在网上获得代表。今天,虚拟代表仍然是我们民主秩序的重要组成部分,但这是一个我们往往忽视的部分。例如,大约四分之一的美国公民不能投票,因为他们是儿童。他们和其他不能投票的人实际上是有代表的。本文认为,首先,虚拟代表制是任何民主制度不可避免的一部分;第二,它是有价值的,即使它通常是仅次于实际代表的;第三,只要我们要做这件事,我们就应该尽力把它做好。本文追溯了美国人厌恶虚拟代表的起源,然后开始阐述某些形式的虚拟代表是如何比其他形式更好或更差的。令人惊讶的是,在各种政治显著因素的充分地理隔离的条件下,我们从单一选区选举几乎所有代表的制度实际上可能确保非选民有相当好的虚拟代表性。也就是说,只要我们计算所有的人,而不仅仅是选民,为了分配的目的,同样,只要我们计算囚犯的最后住址,而不是他们监狱的所在地(这就是所谓的“监狱不公正划分”的问题)。最后,本文认为,美国宪法本身构建了一个现实代表与虚拟代表的混合体系。这种联邦宪法模式的适用范围问题——以及在什么情况下(如果有的话),它会强制执行目前划分人口数量相等而不是选民数量相等的选区的做法——可能会在2020年人口普查后的某个时候出现在最高法院面前。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信