The average citizen does not have the time, the background, or the resources to gather information and develop informed decisions about the broad ranging subjects involved in managing and governing this nation. I live in a democratic republic, not a democracy. Representatives should represent their elector's interests, not act on elector's whims.
For example, the average citizen has spent less than 2 seconds thinking about weights, measures, and metrication. The federal government, on the other hand, funds NIST and (in part) the BIPM to research this subject in depth, and has passed a good deal of legislation over the past 150 years tying us ever-closer to the metric system. This never would have happened had our representatives polled their electors and acted on their uninformed opinions. I pay my representative (through taxes) to do the ground work for me so that I don't have to! If, overall, I don't feel a representative is doing a good job or if I feel he or she is not representing my interests, then I'll vote for someone else next time. That's not to say that if someone has a particular interest or knowledge or strong opinion about a subject that they shouldn't communicate their concerns directly to their elected officials. In this case, we become part of the network of information that our reps. should be using to make informed decisions. John On Wednesday 29 October 2003 04:02, Terry Simpson wrote: > 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?
