So this is a debate that I've had with a few members on IRC over the years, and one that recently came up regarding the redistricting in Pennsylvania and the political ping pong that's occurring thanks to the shifting district lines. What is the responsibility of a representative to their constituents? There are two schools of thought on this front, in my view. A representative is an agent of their constituency. They are elected to act in their constituency's best interests, even if the constituency may disagree. The electorate is choosing a representative based on that representative's personal qualifications, beliefs, and actions. The representative still retains agency, and if their choices are too objectionable to their constituents then their recourse is through the next election. Alternatively, a representative is a proxy for their constituency. The representative is elected to advance the beliefs and causes of their electorate, even when those desires conflict with the representative's beliefs. In this case, a representative who is pro-free trade may support the steel tariffs if there is a large steel producer in their district, for example. Supporting their constituents to the detriment of their own causes. Which is the correct view? I have friends who are ardent supporters of the purity of democracy that hold that the people's will is the only legitimate will. Vox populi, vox dei after all. Personally, I am of the former persuasion. I think that that's the entire purpose of a representative democracy in the first place. Once, one could argue over the logistical issues of direct democracy but with today's technology that is no longer as valid an argument. I hold that we elect representatives to represent us, but they are to act as they best see fit. I expect them to vote for the national good over the regional or local, even if it harms their district. After all, why are we electing individuals instead of voting on platforms or policy proposals? I'm curious to see DLP's views on this.