Do voters have an intrinsic preference for democracy? Assessing attitudes toward trustee or delegate models of representation risks conflating intrinsic and instrumental orientations toward democracy. To clarify the gap between intrinsic and instrumental support for political representation, we use a survey experiment to investigate whether US voters want representatives to enact the individual voter’s own preferences, regardless of countervailing attitudes held by the representative themselves or by their constituents. We find considerable support for this third, personal model of representation. We argue that this poses two important questions for democratic theorists. First, how do citizens’ observed preferences for dictating outcomes challenge normative democratic principles of representation? Furthermore, if we rethink how citizens engage in democratic processes, how does it change our understanding of democracy’s intrinsic worth in the public?
AchenC. H.BartelsL. M. (2017). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government (Revised edition). Princeton University Press.
2.
AhmedA. (2023). Is the American public really turning away from democracy? Backsliding and the conceptual challenges of understanding public attitudes. Perspectives on Politics, 21(3), 967–978. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592722001062
3.
AndersonC. J.BlaisA.BowlerS.ToddD.ListhaugO. (2005). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
4.
BarkerD. C.CarmanC. J. (2012). Representing red and blue: How the culture wars change the way citizens speak and politicians listen (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.
5.
BrennanJ. (2016). Against democracy. Princeton University Press.
6.
CareyJ.ClaytonK.HelmkeG.NyhanB.SandersM.StokesS. (2022). Who will defend democracy? Evaluating tradeoffs in candidate support among partisan donors and voters. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 32(1), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2020.1790577
CarmanC. J. (2007). Assessing preferences for political representation in the US. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 17(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13689880601132497
9.
ConverseP. E.PierceR. (1986). Political representation in France. Harvard University Press.
DassonnevilleR.BlaisA.SeviS.DaoustJ.-F. (2021). How citizens want their legislator to vote. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 46(2), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12275
12.
DischL. (2011). Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055410000602
13.
DryzekJ. S.BächtigerA.ChambersS.CohenJ.DruckmanJ. N.FelicettiA.FishkinJ. S.FarrellD. M.FungA.GutmannA.LandemoreH.MansbridgeJ.MarienS.NebloM. A.NiemeyerS.SetäläM.SlothuusR.SuiterJ.ThompsonD.WarrenM. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694
14.
FossenT. (2019). Constructivism and the logic of political representation. American Political Science Review, 113(3), 824–837. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000273
15.
FoxJ.ShottsK. W. (2009). Delegates or trustees? A theory of political accountability. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1225–1237. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609990260
16.
FrederiksenK. V. S. (2022). Does competence make citizens tolerate undemocratic behavior?American Political Science Review, 116(3), 1147–1153. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000119
17.
GrahamM. H.SvolikM. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000052
HarmsP.LandwehrC.LutzM.TepeM. (2021). Deciding how to decide on public goods provision: The role of instrumental versus intrinsic motives. Research & Politics, 8(2), 20531680211014120. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211014121
20.
KalmoeN. P.MasonL. (2022). Radical American partisanship: Mapping violent hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. University of Chicago Press.
21.
KolodnyN. (2014). Rule over none II: Social equality and the justification of democracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 42(4), 287–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12037
22.
KrishnarajanS. (2022). Rationalizing democracy: The perceptual bias and (Un)Democratic behavior. American Political Science Review, 117(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000806
23.
LafontC. (2015). Deliberation, participation, and democratic legitimacy: Should deliberative mini-publics shape public policy?The Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(1), 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12031
PiazzaJ. A. (2022). Sore losers: Does terrorism and approval of terrorism increase in democracies when election losers refuse to accept election results?Political Research Quarterly, 75(4), 1201–1215. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211054451
26.
RawlsJ. (2005). Political liberalism (Expanded edition): Columbia University Press.
RossetJ.GigerN.BernauerJ. (2017). I the people? Self-interest and demand for government responsiveness. Comparative Political Studies, 50(6), 794–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015621078
29.
StilzA. (2019). Territorial sovereignty: A philosophical exploration. Oxford University Press.
30.
WaldronJ. (2009). Representative lawmaking. Boston University Law Review, 89(2), 335–355.
31.
WilsonJ. L. (2019). Democratic equality. Princeton University Press.
32.
WuttkeA.GavrasK.SchoenH. (2022). Have Europeans grown tired of democracy? New evidence from eighteen consolidated democracies, 1981–2018. British Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123420000149
33.
WuttkeA.SchimpfC.SchoenH. (2020). When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: On the conceptualization and measurement of populist attitudes and other multidimensional constructs. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055419000807
