In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

6 Heterogeneity and Representation Reconsidered CONSTITUENT: “You don’t represent me, and that’s supposed to be your job.” SENATOR SANTORUM: “Obviously, I can’t represent everybody’s viewpoint. . . . My job is to respect everybody’s viewpoint, and I do.” —EXCHANGE BETWEEN AN ANGRY CONSTITUENT AND SENATOR RICK SANTORUM, AS REPORTED IN THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, MARCH 27, 2003 S ince the time of Aristotle, elites have claimed that diversity in a polity is an inherent good, with more always being preferred to less. James Madison saw diversity of peoples and interests as the solution to the problem of majority tyranny.In today’s society,American governmental and educational institutions promote policies designed to embrace,and enhance, diversity to take advantage of its benefits. Others suggest that increased diversity allows for the consideration of a greater range of potential solutions to the problems that face a polity (Sunstein 1993). Social scientists routinely find, however, that the role of diversity is quite complex. In some instances, diversity has negative effects. Diverse societies show higher levels of civil conflict and political instability (Geertz 1973; Rabushka and Shepsle 1972). Some find that the effects vary with different types of institutions (e.g., Collier 2000) and have varying effects in different venues (e.g., Hero and Tolbert 1995a). Others suggest that for reducing inequality, some types of diversity are more effective than others (e.g., Wilson 1987). Interest in diversity has also led to the investigation of its relationship to representation. Unsurprisingly, these results are also complex. Scholars have long recognized that diversity affects particular aspects of representation (e.g., Fenno 1978; Rohde 1991). Some programs designed to enhance descriptive diversity lead to outcomes that appear to reduce substantive representation (e.g., Lublin 1997). Moreover, politicians elected from Heterogeneity and Representation Reconsidered / 121 diverse constituencies, for instance, are less responsive than those from more homogeneous constituencies (e.g., Bailey and Brady 1998; Bishin et al. 2006, but see Gulati 2004). Taken broadly, these studies suggest that enhanced diversity is associated with decreased levels of legislative representation, a finding that seems inconsistent with the central value of liberalism which underlies democracy. Liberalism, the idea that all people in society should have equal voice, has become central to modern conceptions of democracy, and virtually all studies of representation assume that politicians equally consider the views of all of their constituents.1 This chapter examines whether the relationship between political diversity (see Appendix 6A) and representation is affected by overlooking the importance and role of subconstituencies. The problem introduced by electoral diversity is that as an electorate becomes diverse in its preferences, politicians are forced to choose among the positions held by their constituents.2 As illustrated by Senator Santorum’s remark, perfect substantive representation is impossible when constituents disagree.3 In such cases, politicians must choose whom to represent. As a result, diversity bears critically on studies of responsiveness—the degree to which legislators’ behavior reflects the preferences of the citizenry. The examination of representation in campaigns and in Congress in the preceding chapters makes it clear that, contrary to conventional wisdom, states and districts are not easily stereotyped as diverse or homogeneous. On the issues of Cuban trade and assault weapons, for example, Florida’s 20th district is homogeneous, with only one group that feels strongly about those issues. On issues of abortion and extending hate-crimes protections, however, the district has multiple groups holding competing viewpoints. Clearly, scholars need to be cautious when making generalizations about diversity. The conflicting results about the role of diversity are problematic, as they suggest that the quality of representation provided to citizens varies depending on factors outside of their own, and their elected officials’, immediate control. The preferences of institutions such as state legislatures, which both manipulate the political characteristics of the district and are far removed from citizens’ control, interfere with the relationship between the citizenry and its’ elected officials. To the extent that these institutions diminish the quality of representation that they receive, democratic responsiveness is compromised. If so, then rules designed to ensure electoral fairness, such as “one man, one vote” or rules proscribing “racial redistricting” or requiring “compactness” are not enough to ensure that citizens in different districts will be equally well represented. Consequently , these findings have important implications for political scientists and policymakers alike. This chapter examines whether the deleterious effects of diversity still hold once subconstituency effects are considered. Since scholars who observe adverse 122 / Chapter 6 effects from diversity fail to...

Share