# Young and Representation

## November 2nd, 2020

-   It is now 9 months since Groundhog Day. It is now 1 day until the Election. It is now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-   Alright, the day before the 2020 U.S. Election we're talking about Chapter 4 of Young's book, on representation - I think that's fitting!
    -   In Book III of "The Social Contract," Rousseau is skeptical of representation: "Sovereignty cannot be represented for the same reason it cannot be alienated...any law which the people have not ratified in person is null...(they) are free only until the election of members of parliament, and then it is enslaved"
        -   Rousseau claims that representation is an archaic holdover from feudalism, and should be given up as such
    -   Young cites a number of 20th century thinkers who largely agree with Rousseau, that representation isn't legitimate and we need face-to-face direct democracy - but Young thinks representation is both necessary *and* can be beneficial
        -   Given that the U.S. is a continent-sized nation state with millions of people, we can't have a direct conversation with everyone in the room, so representation is needed - but how can we ensure this representative legislature remains democratic and truly "representative" of the people?

-   Young has several points - first of all, what does it mean to represent people in the first place?
    -   In Section 3, Young says that representatives have traditionally been viewed either as DELEGATES (just representing the people and saying what they think the "people" would say) or TRUSTEES (authorized by the "people" to do what they personally think best)
        -   Young, building off of another philosopher, considers this a false dichotomy - she thinks representatives are always BOTH of these at the same time (representatives HAVE to use their own judgement sometimes, especially since you can't ask everyone what they think and your delegates might have diverse, competing views, but they always have to be held accountable to their constituents)
            -   This critical-theory idea of saying that
            -   "As a political philosopher, I'm weird and sometimes daydream 'If I was a senator, what would I do...'; it seems like a hard job trying to juggle a bunch of different priorities"
        -   "In polarized situations like we have right now, it's tempting for people to say 'Well, this person isn't MY senator' when they didn't vote for them - but really, yes, they are. They're supposed to be accountable to you as well."

-   Young goes on to say that there are 3 things someone might "represent" for you, politically
    -   INTERESTS are "what is important to the life prospects or goals of individuals or organizations" - what's going to be best for me, or my group, personally? It's a pragmatic
        -   This tends to be what politicians focus on
        -   "Ever hear someone on the radio say something like, 'How could group X vote against their own interests?', or 'Oh, these West Virginians just voted for coal because they're racist or gullible or whatever?' A common response to that is that voters don't vote based on this definition of interest, but instead based on values and perspectives - they vote for candidates who care about (or *seem* to care about) the same things they do"
    -   VALUES (or OPINIONS) are
        -   This tends to be what most voters latch onto
    -   PERSPECTIVES are more abstract ways of looking at the world, the idea that a rural midwesterner might have a very different perspective than an inner-city youth; while they might differ from you on many individual issues, they have an overall perspective that "represents" you (e.g. a devout Christian might vote for a Catholic with whom they have theological differences because they share the same broad "perspective" on the world)
        -   Young gives the example of a senator who was accused of sexual harassment, and women from across the political aisle - Republican, Democrat, thought he was guilty, thought he was innocent - all pushed to have him investigated. They disagreed on many things, but they had a common perspective as women that sexual harassment was something women are uniquely vulnerable to and should be taken seriously
        -   Someone might represent your perspective, then, by presenting this shared view of the world into the political discourse, even if they have various disagreements with you

-   Now, an important question: does someone have to be from your "social group" to represent your perspective, or to represent you at all? If I'm in a predominantly African American district, does our representative have to be African American?
    -   This is an issue people disagree about; New Zealand was founded by the Treaty of Waitangi, and the treaty was controversial because the Maori had a different understanding of "property" than the English (they understood land as being held collectively, not individually), which the English took advantage of via shady land claims. In the 1950s, the Maori asserted their rights and took more representation in political life, based on the treaty's promise that Maori rights would be respected - and so they have a proportional number of seats in the New Zealand Parliament
        -   "People joke that the Pacific is the most misnamed ocean in the world, and the Polynesians are amazing; they rowed halfway across the world's largest ocean in CANOES! They aren't the Vikings of the South, the Vikings are the Polynesians of the North"
    -   In the U.S., though, with a very different relationship between the Native Americans and descendants of colonists, how would that work? Do we make new states for Native Americans? Do we return Native American land to them, when existing people have moved in? Do we proportionally represent "Native Americans" in Congress (even though the tribes are incredibly diverse)? It's complicated...
        -   *LOOOOOooonnnggggg tangent about if ranked-preference voting could make representation more equitable in the long run*

-   "Do I trust the election polls? No, never; 538, as professional statisticians, keep emphasizing that polls are preliminary, their models are always subject to error, their background assumptions might be wrong, they can fail to represent the actual voters, etc. - hence the 2016 'Bonfire of the Pollsters.' The only votes that count are the real election votes."
    -   "I would say I'm pulling my hair out over this election, but I don't have enough hair left for that unless I'm using tweezers"

-   Okay, getting back to the actual chapter, Rousseau thinks we're free when we vote for our representatives and then are enslaved to the winner until the next election - but Young thinks that isn't true. We're still free because we can hold our representatives accountable in all kinds of ways, from protests to letter-writing
    -   Young sees the relationship between citizen and representative as a 2-way street; you vote to AUTHORIZE the person to make decisions on your behalf, but then the citizens need ways to hold that person ACCOUNTABLE for what they do to make sure they represent us and there are consequences if the person fails to do so, including (or perhaps ESPECIALLY) if the representative isn't someone you voted for
    -   Rousseau thinks that if a representative votes, that's just the voice of an elite group rather than the whole people, and so it's illegitimate; Young would say the representatives CAN speak for the people because the people hold those representatives accountable to speaking for them, and that makes their decisions legitimately democratic
        -   "Again, this is not just rent-seeking 'interests,' but values and perspectives that're being represented"

-   "Even after the votes are cast and counted, then, Young would say that Democracy doesn't end there; the real work of democracy is holding leaders accountable and persuading them to serve their people AFTER they're elected. Even if you didn't vote for them, you still have a civic duty to do that."
    -   "On national TV in France, there used to be a satirical puppet show making fun of politicians and pointing out their scandals - both parties got hit, it was even handed, and EVERYTHING was fair game. That's a form of holding people accountable...satire might feel like it's lost its power in these crazy days, but done well, it can be powerful. John Oliver is practically an investigative journalist nowadays, although unfortunately he sometimes devolves to just shouting at the camera."
        -   "...I dissected a John Stewart bit once, and it was literally a perfect example of reductio ad absurdum built out of quotes from a politician he was making fun off."

-   So, the votes probably won't be counted by Wednesday, it's going to be a long week in politics, so brace yourselves, be decent to each other - and regardless of what happens, hope for the best. That's my pre-election benediction to you all.
    -   "Next up is Chapter 5 on civil society, which sounds like a delightful chapter we need after an election"