Life, Death, and Taxes
During the 17th century, only about 3 percent of the British population could vote for their representatives. But according to the way British people defined voting, every British subject was represented in Parliament. How could this be?
Virtual RepresentationThe rest of the people were represented virtually, including many who lived in areas that were not represented by a member of Parliament. This meant that while one shoemaker who lived in a city might not vote, other shoemakers and other people who lived in cities could vote. And as long as any voter shared a characteristic with you, then he could virtually represent your wishes.
Consent of the GovernedBut the Americans, who strongly believed in the republican ideal of the consent of the governed, saw the notion of "virtual representation" as a sham. If a man could not vote, he was not truly represented. Americans wanted to select their own members of Parliament who would be able to represent their interests directly, not "virtually." Without representation of this kind, the colonists felt that they were being denied a basic democratic right. More importantly, they believed that that the taxes imposed upon them by a Parliament they had no direct influence over were unconstitutional.
The British government rejected this notion, of course. Author Samuel Johnson observed of the Americans, "They are represented by the same virtual representation as the greater part of England." However, not even the American elite could vote for a member of Parliament.
This issue did not die with the American Revolution. Even today, the residents of Washington, D.C. say that they are victims of this kind of legislative tyranny. After all, they pay income taxes but do not have a voting member of Congress.
