Representative government and popular sovereignty

Political Representation

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 90-110

  Garsten, Bryan ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925643376     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511813146.006     Document Type: Chapter

References (26)

1. Ackerman, Bruce A. 1991. We the People: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
2. Bartels, Larry M. 1991. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup.” American Political Science Review 85 (2): 457-74.
3. Burke, Edmund. 2000. “Speech to the Electors of Bristol,” in On Empire, Liberty and Reform, ed. D. Bromwich. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 50-7.
4. Burke, Edmund. 2000. 2003. Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed. F. M. Turner and D. M. McMahon. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5. Constant, Benjamin. 1988. Political Writings, ed. B. Fontana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Constant, Benjamin. 2003. Principles of Politics Applicable to All Governments, trans. D. O’Keeffe, ed. E. Hofmann. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
7. Dahl, Robert Alan. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8. Ferejohn, John. 2003. “Madisonian Separation of Powers,” in James Madison: The Theory and Practice of Republican Government. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 126-55.
9. Fishkin, James S. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10. Garsten, Bryan. 2006. Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. 2003. The Federalist Papers, ed. C. L. Rossiter and C. R. Kesler. New York: Signet Classic.
12. Hobbes, Thomas. 1996. Leviathan, ed. R. Tuck, rev. student edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Holmes, Stephen. 1984. Benjamin Constant and the Making of Modern Liberalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14. Hont, Istvan. 2005. Jealousy of Trade: International Competition and the NationState in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Jefferson, Thomas. 1984. Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. M. D. Peterson. New York: Library of America.
16. Madison, James. 1888. “Virginia Resolutions,” in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, ed. J. Elliot. New York: Burt Franklin.
17. Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Manin, Bernard, Adam Przeworski, and Susan C. Stokes. 1999. “Introduction,” in Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, ed. A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, and B. Manin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Mayhew, David. 2001. “Congressional Opposition to the American Presidency: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford on 27 November 2000.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Miller, Warren E., and Donald E. Stokes. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 45-56.
21. Page, Benjamin I., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1983. “The Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review 77 (1): 175-90.
22. Pasquino, Pasquale. 2007. “Constitution et pouvoir constituant: Le double corps du peuple,” in Sieyès. Paris: Presses Universitaires de la Sorbonne, 13-24.
23. Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
24. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1997. The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings, ed. V. Gourevitch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Sieyes, Emmanuel Joseph. 1996. “Dire de l’abbe Sieyes sur la question du veto royal,” in La Monarchie republicaine: la constitution de 1791, ed. F. Furet. Paris: Fayard, 406-17.
26. Stimson, James A., Michael B. Mackuen, and Robert S. Erikson. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 543-65.