Reform means “to reshape.” We use it to talk about changing laws or social systems for the better, as well as in individual cases of someone trying to reform their behavior. Juvenile delinquents may be sent to reform school, for example. A person who has a drinking problem might try to reform their ways by cutting back or stopping altogether. But it’s important to remember that reform is not revolution: it involves making changes and improvements rather than fundamentally altering or destroying something.
For example, the reforms to American law that took place in the 1860s and 1870s aimed at promoting temperance, creating public school systems, improving prison conditions, and changing the treatment of the insane or poor. These social reforms, reinforced by widespread religious revivals, were a response to popular fears that democracy and territorial expansion could lead to economic chaos, racial tensions, and even civil war.
The reforms to legislative representation that are taking place now are part of a larger effort to address the perceived failings of our democratic system. This Article takes a different approach to the issue, one that centers the role of legislative organization and argues that reforms to a legislature’s internal operations can at times serve as alternate means of achieving the same goals sought by proponents of electoral reforms. It also suggests that theorists of representation must attend to the ways in which legislation is shaped by law before they can fully understand how that process works.
About the Author
