Mandate Reasons and the Ethics of Representation

Democratic theorists have developed a rich literature exploring why winning democratic elections gives representatives the moral right to occupy public office. However, they have largely ignored the question of whether receiving greater or lesser voter support ever makes a moral difference to how representatives ought to govern. In this essay, I defend the existence of mandate reasons for representatives to govern in specific ways that are derived solely from voter support. I argue that the relationship between votes and mandate reasons is characterized by the dependence thesis, which says that votes strengthen representatives’ mandate reasons to govern in specific ways when and only when voters express supportive attitudes for governing in those ways. Because not every vote for a representative expresses the relevant kind of support for their proposals, not every vote strengthens their mandate reasons. This has important implications for the ethics of representation.