Mill's Conception Of Representation In The United States

The seemingly simple concept of representation has a number of conflicting interpretations, resulting in a multitude of opinions on exactly what representation should look like. These clashing conceptions hold representatives to fundamentally different expectations. Edmund Burke, for example, maintains that a good representative should listen to his constituents, but rely mainly on his own judgment in pursuit of the common good, which can sometimes be at odds with the opinions of constituents. In contrast, John Stuart Mill’s idea of representation ties the representative much closer to his constituents. He views representation as a vehicle of the people, through which each and every citizen is guaranteed to be heard, and the elected representative …show more content…
10, Madison presents a purpose of representation that is significantly different from Mill – representatives should “refine and enlarge the public view, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens . . .” (Hamilton 58) – much less of a direct democracy. He believes in the importance of representatives being accountable to their constituents, but not to the uber-pluribus extent argued by Mill. A representative should be tied closely enough to his constituents to understand all of their views, but should not follow their every wish. The representatives, through deliberation, can come to an understanding of the public view that is not based on “temporary or partial considerations” (Hamilton 59). Unlike Mill, Madison states that representatives should be primarily focused on local knowledge as it pertains to commerce, taxation, and the militia (Hamilton 360); it is neither probable nor necessary to know everything about their constituents. The function of the House, Madison argues, is not to advocate for local concerns. Instead, the purpose of representatives is to bring relevant local information into legislative discussion to better enable the House to make decisions that will benefit the nation as a …show more content…
Mill comes no closer, as his conception requires so strong a tie between representatives and their constituents that they would be far too focused on local concerns. Though there exists no clear model of what representation ought to look like, the Federalist moves closer towards reconciling the contradictory principles of representation. Short terms and elections by the people will ensure that representatives will be held accountable to their constituents, and their selfish desires of reelection will motivate them to pursue the common good. Although they will be tasked with being closely tied to their constituents, their primary focus is to “refine and enlarge the public view” in order to bring relevant local information to the House for deliberation, which they will do at a distance from their constituents to ensure that they will not follow them blindly or be caught up in temporary concerns. With the enlarged public view of each local area, the House can more successfully make decisions that will move further towards the good of the whole nation, as they will know how each local area will be