nstead, in this republican form of government, representatives are elected to make decisions for the people, with each representative standing in for a large constituency.
Of course, this form also means that the representatives are acting on their own to a very great degree during the course of their tenure. They may consult with their constituents to the best of their ability, but they are expected to make decisions based on philosophy, a sense of what the public wants, and a personal assessment of what the public needs. This independence is important for the functioning of government, and it is supposed to be accorded to men and women who have the integrity to do the job to the best of their abilities and in accord with principles they share with their constituents. It is also a system that invites a degree of conflict and discord, since at any given time a large part of the constituency of a representative may disagree with his or her vote.
At the same time, it is difficult to see what sort of system could be better than this one in spite of its flaws. The Constitution is the document that makes this democratic structure truly effective and potentially fair because it does what is most important in any democracy--it protects the minority from the majority. One of the reasons why the Founding Fathers did not trust direct democracy was their view that minorities within the population would not be treated fairly. The Constitution was developed as a protection against the tyranny of the majority, and its provisions have served to protect the basic rights of every citizen to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protections in court proceedings, and so on. These provisions have been extended to different groups originally excluded from the document, including various racial minorities, women, and even aliens residing in the United States.
The system is clearly not perfect, and the struggle of various minorities within t...