This work critically assesses the idea of replacing political representation based on elections and politicians by big data-driven algorithms. The rapid digitalization and datafication of our world...Show moreThis work critically assesses the idea of replacing political representation based on elections and politicians by big data-driven algorithms. The rapid digitalization and datafication of our world is fuelling the debate on democratic theory. Can the potential of new ICTs be harnessed to work for the benefit of democracy? Using Gijs van Oenen’s account as base, I make the idea of algorithmic representation more concrete by introducing the concept of a Pocket Politician, and by exploring three scenarios of what this could look like. To further unpack this concept I apply two conceptual tools of the ‘constructivist turn’ in democratic theory: Fossen’s logical distinction between dyadic-triadic and Saward’s theory on the representative claim. By doing so, I show that such a new ‘algorithmic’ system of representation would go accompanied with the loss of human intentionality and the loss of visibility. (1) Algorithmic representation blurs the characterization of the citizens that are represented. It is no longer clear as what citizens are represented due to the non-human intentionality of algorithms. And (2) the performance of representation – the representative claims – will not be visible to the citizens, making it a non-transparent form of politics. Combined, these two concessions would restrict citizens’ ability to see and experience politics on both a sensory and mental level. I come back to the three scenarios of a Pocket Politician to discuss whether this is a problem. I argue that applying algorithmic representation could be beneficial for a democracy depending on its particular state and particular needs.Show less
