"According to a classic story of American political development, the Framers created a certain kind of presidency because they appreciated the dangers of demagogy, a danger they had learned from their reading of antiquity and from their experience in the state governments. Thus the Framers did not envision a president who represents the people but instead created a president who serves as a check on the people's representatives in Congress. Furthermore, this arrangement was deliberately and fundamentally transformed by the Progressives, who were impatient with the counter-majoritarian features of constitutional design and wished to hitch policy reform to presidential leadership. While scholars disagree as to whether this change with respect to the idea of presidential representation was good or bad, the presumption that there was change is a central pillar in the literature on the modern presidency. The Idea of Presidential Representation challenges this story. In place of a before and after moment of transformation, Jeremy D. Bailey argues the evidence shows that presidential representation has long been contested and remains unsettled. He traces the history of the debate over representation from the Convention of 1787 to the disputes over the Twelfth and Twenty-second Amendments to the question of superdelegates in the wake of the 2016 election. The result is a landmark work of political science that promises to redefine the conversation for decades to come"--