CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 533Political Theory and DemocracyPolitical Philosophy and EthicsGender Politics and Representation

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation

Williams, Melissa S.·1998·Princeton University Press eBooks
DOI 10.1515/9781400822782
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Does fair political representation for historically disadvantaged groups require their presence in legislative bodies? The intuition that women are best represented by women, and African-Americans by other African-Americans, has deep historical roots. Yet the conception of fair representation that prevails in American political culture and jurisprudence--what Melissa Williams calls "liberal representation"--concludes that the social identity of legislative representatives does not bear on their quality as representatives. Liberal representation's slogan, "one person, one vote," concludes that the outcome of the electoral and legislative process is fair, whatever it happens to be, so long as no voter is systematically excluded. Challenging this notion, Williams maintains that fair representation is powerfully affected by the identity of legislators and whether some of them are actually members of the historically marginalized groups that are most in need of protection in our society. Williams argues first that the distinctive voice of these groups should be audible within the legislative process. Second, she holds that the self-representation of these groups is necessary to sustain their trust in democratic institutions. The memory of state-sponsored discrimination against these groups, together with ongoing patterns of inequality along group lines, provides both a reason to recognize group claims and a way of distinguishing stronger from weaker claims. The book closes by proposing institutions that can secure fair representation for marginalized groups without compromising principles of democratic freedom and equality.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/9781400822782

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Williams, M. S.
Corresponding author
Williams, Melissa S.
Venue
Princeton University Press eBooks
Publisher
Princeton University Press
Published
1998-12-31
DOI
10.1515/9781400822782
OpenAlex
W4312375731
Cited by
533
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 8
FWCI
11.50
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Princeton University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Politics and Representation
Keywords
women legislators, African American legislators, self-representation, trust in democratic institutions, one person one vote, minority political participation, democratic equality, representation of marginalized groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review