There have been many debates on the proper role of a delegate, representative or senator in a republican form of government. One school of thought advocates representing the "will-of-the-people." An opposing school of thought advocates that candidates set forth and adhere to a specifically stated set of principles (not just single "issues") and voting in accordance with those principles.
Underlying these opposing positions is the concept of just exactly how should candidates be chosen. Currently most elections award the seat to the candidate who receives at least a simple majority (50 percent+1) of the total number of votes cast. In elections with more than two candidates, many rules award the seat to the candidate who receives a plurality, the most votes of all candidates.
There is also the concept of a candidate's having to obtain a super-majority to win the seat. A super-majority is a specified fraction greater than one-half (50 percent), such as three-fifths (60 percent), two-thirds (66.7 percent), three-fourths (75 percent), four-fifths (80 percent), seven-eights (87.5 percent), etc.
VOTING APPROACH OR PHILOSOPHY
In addition to their normal duties of suggesting and considering new legislation, all delegates, representatives and senators in the legislatures throughout the entire country usually swear an oath to defend and abide by the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of their respective state.
Will-Of-the-People Voting: Most "Will-Of-the-People" (WOP) candidates actually try to determine what their constituents are thinking and what they would like to see in the form of legislation. They spend a lot of time talking to constituents, taking surveys, holding "town-hall" meetings, inviting suggestions and opinion letters, etc. Almost always a candidate's perception or sense of the WOP is a simple majority of the opinions received.
No candidate actually has the time to hold extensive question and answer sessions with every single constituent. Consequently, candidates frequently are highly influenced by a relatively few "activists" or "special-interest" groups. And some candidates are influenced by the size of campaign contributions. The end result is that a candidate's perception of the WOP is usually a very crude estimate from a very small percentage of the constituency and the candidate throws in his own biases for good measure.
When a WOP candidate perceives that the WOP is a collectivist/socialist/totalitarian trend, he is bound by his WOP approach to vote for collectivist/socialist/totalitarian legislation. If the WOP candidate thinks that the WOP is for mandatory government-provided healthcare at the expense of the "rich" taxpayers then the WOP candidate feels justified in voting in favor of it. He perceives himself as doing his "obliged duty."
When the WOP candidate perceives that the WOP of his constituency trends toward conservative/libertarian legislation, he will vote accordingly. If the WOP candidate thinks that the WOP is for deregulating business and industries and legalizing previously-banned activities, then the WOP candidate feels justified in voting in favor. He perceives himself as doing his "obliged duty."
The question still arises: "How does one actually determine the WOP and what does it mean? Is the WOP a consensus, a plurality opinion, a simple majority opinion, an overwhelming mandate, or what? Besides that, depending upon the candidate's perception, the WOP could change daily, weekly, monthly, or annually. Consequently no one will be able to plan his life with assurance. Consistency, predictability and stability will be totally lost.
A huge problem with the WOP is that every candidate will almost always have half of his constituents unhappy with his votes. Such can hardly be labeled "the will-of-the-people." As a voter and one of "the governed," I reject the WOP approach. I find it meaningless and totally invalid.
Principled Voting: The concept of a candidate's stating his principles and adhering to them when voting stands in direct opposition to the WOP candidate. The principled candidate publicly states the principles to which he vows to adhere and he votes accordingly. Voters choose either to believe and trust the candidate or not. After his election to office, should he not vote according to his stated principles, the voters should be able to subject him to a "recall" election.
Voters should not have to choose between the "lesser of two evils." The ballot for each office should have a position marked: "None of the above." In addition, in order to reduce the number of dissatisfied voters, a super-majority should be required for election. Ideally, the higher, the better - 87.5 percent would be nice. Should no candidate achieve the super-majority, the election should be conducted until one does.