Joseph B. Reid wrote: >Members of Congress being expected to present the wishes of their >constituents, while British parliamentarians are delegated to vote for >what they consider to be in the best interests of their constituents, >even though the constituents may wish for something different.
'You and your MP' www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/factsheets.cfm "Once elected, the job of an [British] MP is to represent the people of his or her constituency (constituents) in Parliament, whether or not they voted for him or her. You only have one MP so even if you voted for one of the other candidates and you disagree with the views of your MP's party, your MP is still there to help you with all matters for which Parliament or central government is responsible." Legally, British MP's are elected as individuals. Once elected, they are not obliged to do anything for anybody. In practical terms, there are pressures (e.g. from parties, supporters, and future elections) that make them behave as if the interests and wishes of electors are relevant. Is it different with the US system? It is not the first time that this distinction between wishes and interests of electors has been suggested here. If you are talking about the House of Lords, there are no electors so the question does not parse. In my limited search so far, I can't find any articles that mention this topic. Do you have a reference?
