{"id":8014,"date":"2012-08-06T21:39:08","date_gmt":"2012-08-06T16:39:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.awamipolitics.com\/?p=8014"},"modified":"2012-08-06T05:53:12","modified_gmt":"2012-08-06T00:53:12","slug":"functional-representation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.awamipolitics.com\/functional-representation-8014.html","title":{"rendered":"Functional Representation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Territorial vs. Functional representation. <\/strong>Practically all modern States have adopted;<\/sup> the principle of territorial representation. The whole State is divided into a number of constituencies. All the voters living in a constituency elect one or more candidates together regardless of their differences of occupation, profession, religion or social interests and status. This system of representation is known as Territorial Representation, for the elected member claims to represent the territory from where he is elected, whatever his occupation or social work or status may be. For instance, a representative may be a lawyer, but he represents doctors, teachers, workers, peasants, miners, railway men and all other sections and classes of people in his constituency. This system is justified on the ground that a man is more attached to his locality than to his profession and that voters are more locality-conscious.<\/p>

\n