Should Parents Be Given Extra Votes on Account of Their Children?: Toward a Conversational Understanding of American Democracy

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Northwestern University Law Review Pub Date : 2000-01-13 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.186071
R. Bennett
{"title":"Should Parents Be Given Extra Votes on Account of Their Children?: Toward a Conversational Understanding of American Democracy","authors":"R. Bennett","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.186071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The liberal political theory that was used to rationalize the apportionment jurisprudence of the 1960s suggests--with a little republican help from the notion of \"virtual representation\"--the possibility of extra votes for parents on account of their children. It suggests the notion so clearly that the almost complete absence of the idea from American political discourse is something of a mystery. The mystery is deepened by the fact that apportionment is usually done according to total population. Extra voting power is thus already being cast on account of children, but by the district population as a whole, rather than parents. The extra votes idea has surfaced recently, but barely. This Article explores the implications of its mysterious obscurity. The Article proposes a conversational theory of American democracy, in which public involvement in democratic conversation is the glue that holds the system together. Competitive elections are an essential stimulus for this conversation. The conversational theory is descriptive rather than normative. This accounts for a good deal of its superior descriptive force when compared with liberal and republican theories, which are normative in inspiration and are then turned to descriptive tasks, often without an appreciation of the shift. The conversational theory comfortably accommodates the continued obscurity of the extra votes possibilities, as well as many other aspects of American political life that cry out for explanation in liberal (or republican) terms. It explains, for instance, the apparent success of the United States Senate, an institution well-suited to democratic conversation, but quite awkward in liberal terms. The extra votes idea may yet catch on, because American democracy is influenced by normative visions. Whether that happens or not, however, there is much to be learned from the fact that the idea remains largely unattended.","PeriodicalId":47587,"journal":{"name":"Northwestern University Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northwestern University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.186071","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

Abstract

The liberal political theory that was used to rationalize the apportionment jurisprudence of the 1960s suggests--with a little republican help from the notion of "virtual representation"--the possibility of extra votes for parents on account of their children. It suggests the notion so clearly that the almost complete absence of the idea from American political discourse is something of a mystery. The mystery is deepened by the fact that apportionment is usually done according to total population. Extra voting power is thus already being cast on account of children, but by the district population as a whole, rather than parents. The extra votes idea has surfaced recently, but barely. This Article explores the implications of its mysterious obscurity. The Article proposes a conversational theory of American democracy, in which public involvement in democratic conversation is the glue that holds the system together. Competitive elections are an essential stimulus for this conversation. The conversational theory is descriptive rather than normative. This accounts for a good deal of its superior descriptive force when compared with liberal and republican theories, which are normative in inspiration and are then turned to descriptive tasks, often without an appreciation of the shift. The conversational theory comfortably accommodates the continued obscurity of the extra votes possibilities, as well as many other aspects of American political life that cry out for explanation in liberal (or republican) terms. It explains, for instance, the apparent success of the United States Senate, an institution well-suited to democratic conversation, but quite awkward in liberal terms. The extra votes idea may yet catch on, because American democracy is influenced by normative visions. Whether that happens or not, however, there is much to be learned from the fact that the idea remains largely unattended.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
父母应该为他们的孩子获得额外的投票权吗?:对美国民主的对话式理解
被用来合理化20世纪60年代分配法理学的自由主义政治理论,在“虚拟代表制”(virtual representation)概念的一点共和党帮助下,提出了为父母的子女争取额外投票权的可能性。它如此清晰地暗示了这个概念,以至于美国政治话语中几乎完全没有这个概念,这有点令人费解。分配通常是根据总人口进行的,这一事实加深了这种神秘感。因此,额外的投票权已经被赋予给了孩子们,但这是由整个地区的人口而不是父母来决定的。额外投票的想法最近浮出水面,但几乎没有。本文将探讨其神秘的含意。本文提出了一种美国民主的对话理论,在这种理论中,公众参与民主对话是维系整个制度的粘合剂。竞争激烈的选举是推动这种对话的重要因素。会话理论是描述性的,而不是规范性的。与自由主义和共和主义理论相比,这在很大程度上说明了其优越的描述力量,后者在灵感上是规范的,然后转向描述任务,通常没有意识到这种转变。对话理论很好地适应了额外投票可能性的持续模糊性,以及美国政治生活中迫切需要用自由派(或共和党)术语解释的许多其他方面。例如,它解释了美国参议院的明显成功,这是一个非常适合民主对话的机构,但在自由主义方面却相当尴尬。额外投票的想法可能会流行起来,因为美国民主受到规范愿景的影响。然而,无论这种情况是否会发生,我们都可以从这个想法基本上无人关注的事实中学到很多东西。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Northwestern University Law Review is a student-operated journal that publishes four issues of high-quality, general legal scholarship each year. Student editors make the editorial and organizational decisions and select articles submitted by professors, judges, and practitioners, as well as student pieces.
期刊最新文献
From the Spirit of the Federalist Papers to the End of Legitimacy: Reflections on Gundy V. United States A New Strategy for Regulating Arbitration Contract Governance in Small-World Networks: The Case of the Maghribi Traders Reconstituting We the People: Frederick Douglass and Jurgen Habermas in Conversation The Discriminatory Effects of the HUD Smoke-Free Policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1