This section of the report will provide modern definitions and theories of representation and apply that definition in attempt to judge the quality of representation in American legislatures. In any discussion of representation it is essential to first have a general knowledge of representative theory, both as a concept and as an action. It is also important to determine the variables that are fundamental to a representative democracy in order to suggest methods of improving our government. Finally, it is necessary to take the views of representatives into account before taking a stand on the condition of our democracy and suggesting specific changes to it.
Theories of Representation

Hannah Fenichel Pitkin states that representation "makes present that which is not literally present"(Schwartz, 1988, p.1). The description seems simple, but its generality masks the complexity that is always present in a discussion of representation. As a result, theories concerning the concept of representation, and theories to explain actions of elected officials have emerged. This section of the report will discuss the different concepts of representation, and the different ways that modern representatives "make present" the ideas of their constituencies and whose views are represented in American Legislatures.Conceptual theories will be used for general background and categories of possible roles assumed by representatives will be given a more detailed examination.
"Authorization" Theory

In Thomas HobbesŐ Leviathan, a political discussion becomes the focus of Chapter 16 in the context of a philosophical work. Although Hobbes was not a political theorist, his arguments provided a springboard for future political theorists due to his lack of knowledge in politics (Pitkin, 1967, pp. 14-15). Hobbes authorization theory as presented by Pitkin, the representative has been authorized to act, giving him the right to act that he did not have before. This also means that the represented has become responsible for the consequences of that action as if he had done it himself. It is a view strongly skewed in favor of the representative. His rights have been enlarged and his views have been decreased. The represented, in contrast, has acquired new responsibilities and given up some of his rights. Pitkin states that this view is attractive because it is partly right, but dismisses it as a concrete theory of representation because it mistakes one aspect of representation for the whole. HobbesŐ view of representation is only describing the initial relationship and not the process that takes place after the authority is granted to the elected official (Pitkin, 1967, pp. 38-39).

"Standing For" Theory

In Chapter 6 of The Concept of Representation, Pitkin introduces her "standing for" theory that primarily focuses on the composition of legislative bodies. Within the theory, two types of representation are presented: descriptive and symbolic. Descriptive representation may be more widely known as demographic representation, in which the goal of the government is for the legislature to, in the words of John Adams, "be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason and act like them." If a legislature is a mirror of society, then its members will not have to act on behalf of their respective constituencies, because the representative are like the population of their constituencies. This theory is challenged by the passiveness a truly reflective assembly brings about. With even the smallest minority having representation, the act of governing would be made difficult, as swift action would be prevented. Leaving too much room for deliberation, compromises may be sacrificed and thus the ability to govern is sacrificed (Pitkin, 1967, pp. 61-64).

At the opposite end of descriptive representation is "policy" representation. In this theory, the interest of each demographic group are believed to be represented even though the representative does not necessarily share common characteristics with many of the constituents. Opponents to this theory do not believe that someone without similar background and experiences can truly represent the interests of his or her constituents. The difficulty now rests in redrawing boundaries to enable minorities to elect those of common ethnic or demographic background.

Pitkin later turns to the theory of "symbolic" representation. In this theory, representatives symbolize their constituency much as the flag symbolizes the nation. It is not really relevant to our discussion as it is mainly a formal vision of a nation, much like the President represents the nation at foreign State dinners (Pitkin, 1967, pp. 92-111). This theory as well as others previously presented have not given any criteria for judgment of representatives, nor offered advice on how a representative should act.

"Acting For" Theory

Moving from concepts of representation, Pitkin acknowledges the argument that none of the previously mentioned theories deal with the actions of representatives and proposes the "acting for" theory. This theory merely provides a general description of the tie between the representative and those for whom he acts (Pitkin, 1967, p. 121). PitkinŐs view provides a general umbrella, under which most modern theories are covered: trustee, delegate, Burkean, liberalism, and although not directly argued by Pitkin, the politico, and transmission belt theories. PitkinŐs arguments on this theory are focused mainly on the word origins and whether the use of those terms provides a proper description of representatives. For the purposes of this report, the terms "trustee" and "delegate" will be used for the value given to them by modern political scientists, and will be examined on the grounds of what that value entails.

"Trustee" Theory

The trustee theory (presented by Pitkin as "independence" theory) suggests that the role of a representative is to act in the interest of his or her constituents (Rosenthal, 1998, p. 9). This theory presents a solution to the problem of uninformed constituents that do not have the necessary knowledge on issues to take an educated position on issues. The representative is "entrusted" with the position to make decisions that will benefit the district he or she represents. This position also allows for the representative to take into consideration other benefactors such as the state or nation as a whole. The delegate model of representation counters this ideal of representation.

"Delegate" Theory

The delegate model (presented by Pitkin as "mandate" theory) suggests that the legislator should act only on the instruction of his or her constituents. In this role, representatives are elected by a local group, and sent to deliver the groupŐs vote (Pitkin, 1967, pp. 133,214). This theory does not provide representatives the luxury of acting in their own conscience, and often fails to take the good of the state or nation into account. In essence, the representative acts as the voice of those who are not literally present.

"Politico" Theory

This theory is generally not discussed by Pitkin, as her theories focus on the ideal forms of representation. This term is perhaps a skillful mix of the trustee and delegate models (Schwartz, 1988, p. 25). This theory is also associated with career politicians who act in any way that will help them get reelected. Politico theory also falls in line with the liberalism theory, as interest groups are a major pressure on "politicos" due to campaign endorsements and contributions.

"Liberalism" Theory

Liberalism theory is based upon many different interests, and those interest are associated with "factions," or interest groups. A major argument in favor of this theory is that interest groups are inevitable in a nation with so many different opinions, and by representing each one, none will gain total control in government. This view is presented by Pitkin, based on the arguments of James Madison, stating, "Only if each representative pursues the factious interests of his constituency can the various factious interests in the nation balance each other off in the government" (Pitkin, 1967, p. 196).

Robert Grady presents a different argument for Liberalism in Restoring Real Representation. Grady states that interest group representation makes up for political apathy in the general public. In other words, those that have interest in a certain issue will join a group, and the opinion will be heard; whereas apathy on the part of the public will not inform representatives about the issues that are important at one particular time. There are many arguments against this theory, mainly stating that it is unrepresentative and elitist (Grady, 1993, pp. 33-43). Supporters of this theory may find a middle road to travel with critics of it in the theory presented by Edmund Burke.

"Burkean" Theory

Burkean theory differs from liberalism in that it focuses on individual interests, not a plurality of interests (Pitkin, 1967, p. 192). Burke sees interests as unattached, objective, and impersonal. According to Burke, the good of the nation is not a will behind the actions of government, but as a "general reason of the whole" (Pitkin, 1967, p. 169). In other words, the good of the nation does not lie in the opinions of constituents in any form, but in reason and judgment. This also falls in line with the symbolic role of representation. The representative represents the nation, not just those in the constituency. Though an older theory, it, along with previous theories of representation can be combined into transmission belt theory.

Transmission Belt and Constitutive Theories

Nancy Schwartz in The Blue Guitar presents both relatively new, the transmission belt theory and the constitutive representation theory. Schwartz suggests that the trustee/delegate model is obsolete because it fails to explain the complex realities of modern times. She instead focuses on "responsiveness" of representativesŐ to the wants and needs of constituents in the form of policy, service, allocative, and symbolic responsiveness. Policy responsiveness deals with the interaction between the public and the representative in making public policy, service responsiveness considers the benefits a legislator is able to obtain for constituents, allocative responsiveness are similar in that they measure the effectiveness of the legislator in benefiting constituents; in this case dealing with pork-barrel politics advantageous to the district as a whole, and symbolic responsiveness dealing with the trust and confidence in the representative from constituents and also the manner in which the representative responds to it. These four aspects of responsiveness fit into her transmission belt theory.

Within this theory, there is both a delegate and trustee version. What distinguishes it from the two older theories is the fact that it calls for a representative act according to the wishes of the constituency, but that action must also be in accordance with the good of the state or nation. This theory allows for both the representative to act in a like fashion as his or her constituents would act and also act on their behalf when their inadequate knowledge forms an opinion that is not truly in their interest. Representatives, then, serve as communicators between people and their government, aggregating their wishes into acceptable compromises and explaining the discrepancy where their wishes depart from their interests. The problem with this theory is trying to explain to the public the legitimacy of an act that was in their interest but not their wishes. The representative is not limited by public opinion necessarily, but will have trouble convincing constituents when he or she does not act according to their wishes (Schwartz, 1988, p. 191).

The other theory proposed by Schwartz may provide a solution to this problem. This model combines the four major concepts of representation: authorization, descriptive, symbolic, and acting for the electorate. In the constitutive theory, the public opinion provides a circle, within which the representative is free to act. This theory is very close to the manner in which the United States government currently works. The main difference is the idealism of the constitutive theory. It stresses the importance of constituencies based on ideology and not necessarily geography. The main difference between this theory and the transmission belt theory is that when a conflict exists between local and national interest in constitutive theory, the representative should vote for the latter; whereas in transmission belt theory, the legislator is expected to vote for the local interest. This theory appears to be the closest to a workable mixture of all theories put together, and also is remarkably close to the way legislatures work in the United States (Schwartz, 1988 pp. 131-145).

Conclusion

It is safe to say that all theories presented above fall under PitkinŐs statement that representation "makes present that which is not literally present." However, they also show the tensions that exist between the different manners in which this is done. Representatives must attempt to maintain a balance between views of constituents, personal beliefs, and the common goal of both maintaining and improving the nation as a whole. This responsibility cannot solely rest upon the shoulders of the representative but also on the shoulders of the represented. Citizens must not only make an effort both to be informed and to inform legislators, but also acknowledge that representatives may have more information on certain issues and allow them to exercise their entrusted power to act with the public good in mind. For if no one can act for another, to the degree that interests, will, welfare, or whatever is supposed to be involved in representing as activity is regarded as something each man can only define for himself, representation as activity becomes impossible (Pitkin, 1967, p. 208).

Constituent Relations

There are many pieced to building the puzzle of an effective legislative body. In a government "of the people" it is crucial that representatives are constantly aware of public opinion. Elected officials need to stay in tune with the needs and wishes of the public, and this boils down to maintaining open channels of communication. These channels must also flow both ways. While the public must make the effort to inform the representative, the legislator must also make an effort to both inform the public and listen to its desires.

Legislative Communication on the Part of the Legislator

The campaign is a defining point in determining the future quality of communication by a legislator. During the campaign, and especially a representativeŐs first run for public office, the candidate must take a clear stance on the issues, and also be available for questions. The candidate must listen to the voice of his or her constituency, and form a platform on which to run. Once elected, the representative must maintain contact with the people in a variety of ways.

There are many ways to communicate with the people in the modern world of television, radio, and the internet, but it is also important for the legislator to be physically present in the district in order to engage in one-on-one conversation. Attending activities within the district in a variety of settings to create the opportunity to hear a variety of public views. These events include town meetings, church suppers, art shows, football games, and concerts, along with many other activities. Senator Larry Rohrbach cited chili suppers and ice-cream socials as his personal favorites. Visiting the district not only provides an opportunity to hear a wide variety of voices, but also an opportunity to witness firsthand the problems in the district such as the quality of the roads. Although these activities may seem like photo opportunities, those in attendance must also benefit from this so it is important for the legislator to take a genuine interest in the concerns of the constituency.

Opening a district office also helps widen the channels of communication. While legislators are busy, they must also understand that their constituents are too. If legislators have an office within the district, many citizens will have the time to visit them as oppose to the office in Jefferson City of Washington D.C.. Congressman Kenny Hulshoff and State Senator Ronnie DePasco operate district offices. Hulshoff feels that he can better experience the concerns of his constituents when in direct contact with them, many times at his district offices. With a local office, the opportunity for constituents to speak directly to their representative is expanded.

With the busy schedule of a contemporary legislator, it may be difficult to attend events and make frequent trips to home offices. Another way to communicate to the people is in the form of a newsletter. Senator Rohrbach publishes a weekly column in the newspapers of Booneville, Jefferson City, and the Lake of the Ozarks highlighting his current agenda, and periodically surveying his constituents in the form of a questionnaire. For the most part, the newsletter is a one-way channel of communication from the legislator to the public, but this communications informs the public and gives citizens an idea of what the government is doing. If they are unhappy, it is then their responsibility to make an effort to contact their respective legislator.

Communication on the Part of the Public

It also must be stressed that communication is a two-way street. While the legislator must attempt to inform the public, the public must also attempt to inform the legislator. There are many ways that the public can contact legislators beginning with simple ways such as telephone calls and handwritten letters. A common belief among the public is that representatives do not care enough to read letters or answer phone calls. State Senators Casky and Rohrbach stated the case was quite the contrary (personal interview). E-mail as also provided another mode of communication, though representatives tend to ignore mass mailings, or "spam" by grassroots organizations. IN fact the term "Astroturf" has replaced "grassroots" in many circles do to the "fake" nature of these e-mails. One problem with this mode of communication is that many Americans do not have access to the internet. This problem can be fixed by placing internet capable computers in public places such as the library, community centers, or even the welfare offices. In addition to extending the hand of technology to many that it does not currently reach, it would allow citizens to speak "while the iron is hot." For example, a computer could be set up at the Health and Human Services department to act as sort of a high-tech complaint box. When a disgruntled citizen runs into trouble with some sort of policy, they could contact a representative right away, before they head home and apathy sets in. Although this system would have its downfalls such as bombardment with trivial requests, it would be better to have too much feedback, instead of too little, if the feedback is authentic.

There are several possibilities for remedying the problems with the e-mail mode of communication. Grassroots organizations should be encouraged to adopt a code of conduct that would include a pledge to curb mass mailings to representatives. The public must also be educated and provided tips for on-line communication with legislative offices. Legislative offices should also be provided with funding to upgrade their systems to better handle the communications (MSNBC webpage). These steps would all encourage better communication on the part of the public.

The public must also make an effort to inform legislators through traditional ways as intended by this nationŐs founders. The public needs to travel to the legislature and/or district offices to be in direct contact with government and officials. The public voice can be heard during committee meetings on a bill. Though not every citizen feel comfortable speaking in such a formal setting, the opportunity to assure that oneŐs voice is heard is present in this mode of communication.

It is also important that communication from the public is not always negative. Positive reinforcement for legislators would better the system as a whole. Politicians are so often overwhelmed by negativity, that a "thank you" letter would be a welcome change. If they receive positive mail or phone calls some of the time, representatives would be more willing to listen, and in turn, the public is more willing to speak.

The most effective form of communication for the public is the vote. If the public does not voice its opinion through the ballot, than there is no standing to complain about the state of our government.

Conclusion

Communication is the key to a legislative body that understands public sentiment. It is the publicŐs duty speak, and the representativeŐs duty to listen. There are many ways to open the channels of communication, but responsibility rests on the shoulders of both the representative and the represented. The main mode of communication for the public is the vote, and this is also a way that the representative voices his or her concerns. Election day is the day for all citizens to be heard, so voter turnout is key to the responsiveness of government.