Bernard Manin challenges the assumption that representative democracy is simply indirect self-government, arguing that its founders explicitly designed it as an alternative to democracy—a system meant to place political power in the hands of a superior class of citizens. Through careful examination of the debates surrounding the American, English, and French revolutions, Manin shows that election was understood as an aristocratic mechanism, while the democratic method was lottery. When Athenians wanted decisions made by the people, they chose decision-makers by lot; when they wanted expertise or quality, they used election. The American founders, distrustful of direct popular rule, deliberately chose the elitist method. Manin traces how representative government has evolved through distinct phases: parliamentarianism, party democracy, and the current audience democracy where personality and image dominate. His analysis examines the tension between representatives' independence (the ability to use their judgment) and resemblance to constituents (the idea that they should mirror those they represent). The book provides historical depth and analytical precision to debates about democratic legitimacy, showing that many critiques of current politics—the domination of elites, the unrepresentativeness of representatives—identify features built into the system by design rather than corruptions of an originally democratic ideal. Political theorists and citizens concerned about democratic dysfunction will find essential historical context here.