Akingbemi 1
Mandate-Independence theory of Representation
The impeachment of Donald Trump was controversial due to our representatives’ actions,
and there have been numerous assumptions as to what motivated our representatives’ decisions.
Some representatives decided to vote on what was best for the country. Some voted for what was
best for their constituents, others voted for what was best for their careers, and some voted on
what was more desirable for their political party. The Concept of Representation by Hanna Pitkin
will help us understand the nuance between our representatives’ decisions and help categorize
them as either a delegate or a trustee representative. Jeff Van Drew is an example of a
representative who chose to be a “delegate” representative during the impeachment process
because he voted based on what his constituents wanted him to do instead of voting on what was
more desirable for his political party. Unlike Jeff Van Drew, Mitt Romney is an example of a
[senator] who chose to be a “trustee” representative because he ultimately decided to vote the
way he thought was best for the nation rather than listening to his constituents and political party.
The mandate-independence theory of representation will help explain these representatives’
actions during the impeachment hearings and trial. According to the theorists of
mandate-independence, understanding the purpose and role of our representatives can help
address how representatives are supposed to act.
Mandate theorists say that the representative is supposed to do the bidding of their
constituents because they were elected to enact the constituents’ beliefs instead of their own
(Pitkin, 1972, 146). In essence, a delegate is nothing but a proxy acting in place of the
constituents. In the case of an impeachment hearing, a representative would have to reach out to
his voters to see which way the majority of people are leaning to make a decision, failing to
enact the will of the constituency means that a representative has failed as a true representative
according to mandate theorists. According to Pitkin, famous mandate theorists, Hillaire Belloc
and G. K. Chesterton, stated that “Either the representative must vote as his constituents would
vote if consulted or vote in the opposite sense. In the latter case, he is not a representative at all,
but merely an oligarch” (Pitkin, 1972, 150). In essence, a representative’s job is to make sure that
the will of the majority of his constituents are echoed and enacted. Mandate theorists believe that
if a district overwhelmingly says “yes” to a proposition, the representative has to say “yes” to
that proposition.
Independence theorists see the difficulties that will arise if a representative always acted
as a delegate. If a representative worked only as a delegate, challenges arise, including the lack
of political compromise, deliberation amongst opposite sides, and civility. These [independence]
theorists see a representative as someone who specializes in making decisions for a whole
constituency. They believe this person is best left alone to ponder difficult and complex issues
that the ordinary man would not comprehend (Pitkin, 1972, 147). Compared to mandate theorists
who believe that the constituents choose a representative to do something for them of which they
are capable of doing. Independence theorists believe that representation means the power of the
people should be given over to the deputy chosen by the people to act for them (Pitkin, 1972,
150-151). Independence theorists believe that after constituents elect a representative, they give
the representative the full authority to work independently at his discretion without consulting
them. This definition does not mean that once elected, a representative within the independence
Akingbemi 2
theory does not have to consult his constituents; however, it means that a representative within
this theory makes the final decision and has the right not to consult his constituents.
Jeff Van Drew, previously a Democrat, is a representative from New Jersey’s 2nd
congressional district, and his impeachment vote is a crucial case study for someone acting as a
delegate. It is important to note that in 2018, Van Drew ran as a Democrat and won the seat.
However, before his election, in 2016, Trump took the district after former President Barack
Obama won it in both 2008 and 2012 (Przybyla and Li 2019). This information proves that many
Van Drew’s constituents are moderate to conservative-liberals that flip-flop between both
political parties in election cycles. The house’s impeachment hearings saw numerous
representatives vote along party lines, but this was not the case for representative Van Drew.
According to a YouGov poll, 90 percent of American Democratic party voters approved of the
House of Representatives decision to impeach President Trump in the first place compared to 7
percent of American Republican party voters (Bycoffe, Koeze and Rakich 2020). As a member
of the Democratic party, Jeff Van Drew was expected to vote “YES” on both articles of
impeachment as did almost all Democratic party officials. However, he decided to go against the
will of the party. Democratic Party voters mostly elected Van Drew, so it can be assumed that his
constituents felt the same as did most Democratic voters about Trump’s impeachment. Some
might say that Van Drew was more of a trustee representative for going against the mostly
Democratic constituents that elected him. Still, he acted as a delegate by understanding that the
previous electorate that elected him was diminishing.
Consequently, it can be assumed that even though Van Drew knew that Democrats
elected him, he felt the tide turning within his district politically, which prompted him to vote
according to the will of the people. Drew acted as a delegate to please his now mostly
Republican constituency. Drew’s “NO” vote on the articles of impeachment prompted support
from Republicans within his district. These events led to Drew switching political parties and
meeting with President Trump, which was essentially an endorsement.
Mitt Romney is a Republican member of the Senate from the state of Utah. He ran for the
Senate seat in 2018 and won the election with 63 percent of the vote. Before the impeachment
hearings making it to trial in the Senate, according to an IPSOS poll, 54 percent of the American
public approved of the Senate voting to remove President Trump from office; however, 10
percent of Republicans according to polls supported the Senate removing Trump (Bycoffe,
Koeze and Rakich 2020). Due to the overwhelming Republican support base in Utah, most
people expected Romney to vote “No” on convicting Trump in the Senate trials. Nevertheless,
Romney decided to go against the will of his political party and his constituents. Romney acted
as an independent arbiter void from any instructions from his constituents. Romney attributed his
decision to read the Federalist Papers as the determinant factor that guided him to vote “Yes” to
find Trump guilty of abuse of power. The Federalist Papers is a complicated document that most
of Romney’s constituents and Americans have not read. Romney’s interpretation of this historic
document informed his decision to find Trump guilty of abuse of power. Romney admits that the
outcome could have been different if the voters chose the fate of Trump. However, he
vehemently rejected the idea of voters determining Trump’s fate at the ballot box; still, he said
that it was right for the Senate to decide the outcome of Impeachment because his conscience
was at peace with his decision (Coppins 2020). Romney knew his decision to go against the
Republican party and his constituents would make his political life harder. Still, he believed it
was his job to make that decision as a representative. Romney truly believes that sometimes it is
Akingbemi 3
okay to deviate from his constituents’ will for the overall national interest. In this instance, he
thought that Trump violated his oath to the office of the Presidency, so he chose to listen to his
conscience instead of his extremely conservative constituency.
These representatives had a lot to consider in making their decision, Senator Mitt
Romney’s and representative Jeff Van Drew’s decision on whether or not to vote “Yes” or “No”
on the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump was not an easy choice to make. They both
represent a diverse group of people whose opinions and perspectives differed on impeaching and
removing President Trump from office; it was up to these representatives whether they wanted to
enact the will of the people or whether they wanted to act independently. Jeff Van Drew chose to
adopt his constituents’ will and switch political parties in possibly a desperate hope to win his
next congressional election. Senator Romney decided to act independently from his constituents’
will. He justified his decision by providing an artifact from the Federalist Papers that condemned
President Trump’s actions. Based on these representatives’ actions in the impeachment hearings
and trial, we see the difference between the mandate and independent theories and the vital role
they play in American representative society.
Bibliography
1. Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1972. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of
California.
2. Przybyla, Heidi, and David K. Li. 2019. "Rep. Jeff Van Drew, Opposed To Impeachment,
Expected To Leave Democratic Party." NBC News.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-jersey-rep-jeff-van-drew-opposed-impe
achment-expected-leave-n1102316 (28 May 2020).
3. Costa, Robert. 2019. "Trump Welcomes Rep. Van Drew, An Impeachment Foe Switching
Parties To Join GOP."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-welcomes-rep-van-drew-an-impeachme
nt-foe-to-the-gop/2019/12/19/76bccad2-226c-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html (28
May 2020).
4. Bycoffe, Aaron, Ella Koeze, and Nathaniel Rakich. 2020. "Do Americans Support
Impeaching Trump?." FiveThirtyEight.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/ (28 May 2020).
5. Coppins, McKay. 2020. "How Mitt Romney Decided Trump Is Guilty." The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/romney-impeach-trump/606127/
(28 May 2020).