The answer is clearly No. But I will go on into a long rant about why and perhaps what can be done about it. First I must state that I don't feel that there is one single person in government that represents me! That should be clear if you read all that I have to say here... There is no one representing those who wish to have the right to die, those who would be marijuana smokers, not to wear seatbelts or crash helmets. Who is represented by our present form of Democracy is the few the proud the rich. The only thing our politicians care about is the next election and who will pay for it.
The difference between representation (Agency) and political representation is clear in the laws of this country. You can sue an Agent (Lawyer, Union Rep, Employee) if they don't follow the wishes of those being represented. You can not sue a government official for lying about his intentions during a campaign!
If the Representative is an agent of those who voted for him, he clearly does not represent those whom voted against him. Furthermore since we have a districting system the popular vote is never represented in the outcome. What?
Legislators being human will do whatever they can get away with to enhance their incomes and make their lives better. Thus they always represent themselves first and foremost.
In The mid 1800's Pierre Joseph Proudhon presented what he called "a paradox of voting" Because the loser in any seat gets nothing the majority can lose in a districting system. (This is why you learn about Gerrymandering in school). Proudhon offered this query: Suppose you have 3 districts each with one hundred voters. In districts 1 and 2 55 voters vote for a candidate or position. However in district 3 only 10 vote for and 90 against. You now have 180 against and 100 for but the candidate or proposition carries because the representative body is 2 to 1 for it.
The time has come for direct Representative democracy, people voting on the
laws, we have the technology, Perot campaigned for it in 1992, but the Washington
machine will not give up the ship easily. Besides you will still have the overrule
of the majority stepping on minority issues. I propose that any issue that is involved
with personal choices (Like Drugs, right to die, wearing seat belts) should only
need a ten percent acceptance to be legal, or a 90% intolerance to be considered
Does your Representative represent you?
What to do for now ?
Back to War on Drugs