Why do we keep electing politicians who don't represent us

Why do people vote for the politicians they vote for?
We all have at least three issues which we feel strongly about, probably more.
Do you vote for the candidate who meets all or most of them?
But what if the party that they represent has views on other less important issues which you strongly disagree?
You may feel "I'd never vote for X party ... but I agree with them on d, e and f". You may vote for Jo Bloggs who got you something you brought to them.
Some issues are amorphous. Independence, Brexit - your opinion of the issue and desired outcome may be diagonally different to what emerged/emerged.

You misunderstand representative democracy.

It is not meant to be directly representative of each individual, how could it be?

The point is each constituency sends a representative to make a judgement call on the issue in front of them.

Because people have different views on who we think represents our preferences best. 🤷‍♀️

It’s one thing to feel you can’t support the Assisted Dying Bill, but another thing entirely to wish someone would suffer the consequences of not supporting it in ’exquisite detail’.

Please can you explain to me what you mean ?

I support Dying with Dignity, and a person's right to choose when they die (with various safeguarding checks in place). My friend disagrees with it. My MP can't "represent" both of us, as we have opposing viewpoints.

Or are you saying each MP needs to set up some sort of referendum before they vote on an issue in Parliament ?

But surely that is the point ?
People don't want to die before they are ready to.
People who choose to go to Dignitas (and can afford it) have to be well enough to travel. So some make the decision to do so as it is the only way they have any control, rather than having an extra 6 months or year, living with their loved ones, still knowing that when the time feels right for them, they could choose for their life to end.

I have yet to see a politician that isn't a lying, selfish, fraudulent, criminal, corrupt, problematic pasted, greedy, power-hungry, dubious self-serving bag of rotten egg crap. Decent people with morals and values don't want to be politicians and represent their peers, because they know the kind of idiots they'll be forced to deal with on a daily basis

I have come across plenty.
My current MP is one of them. He is a decent, hard working man doing his best to support his constituents, and to fulfill his role as an MP. He isn't the only one by a long way.
One issue is, we tend to only hear about those in the spotlight, not the other 600 or so, many of whom do a great job. The press aren't interested in a headline saying "MP hold constituency meeting in drafty Church hall on a Saturday morning, then follows up the information (s)he has been given and works hard to support the people in that situation".

The debate around assisted dying on here is typical of the trivial, unintelligent debate in this country in the media and parliament. In the past it would have been recognised that people have serious, well reasoned reasons for being against it. For example most of the serious Christians and Muslim MPs would have voted against it as its aganst the religious principles of those religions. And people like Wes Streeting as well as being Christian didn't want to vote for it because of the bad state of palliative care in the NHS. Others have seen what has happened in countres wuch as Holland where teenagers with depression have been euthanised. I am glad it was rejected and hopefully that is the end of the matter.

Let's hope the politicians who voted against the Bill don't end up with locked-in syndrome.

That logic is insane.

There are thousands of situations Kim Leadbetter’s bill did not accept should be lawful reasons for assisted suicide.

The awful trauma of losing a child, of violent rape, of PTSD of war. Basically anything other than being in the last six months of life.

Do you really conclude that Leadbetter therefore wishes to inflict those horrors on others. (Let alone on “everyone”).

Really? It’s a bizarre non-sequitur to conclude that’s what she’s there in her office wishing.

Equally, not wanting “being in the last six months of a painful terminal illness” to be a reason for lawful assisted suicide doesn’t mean “wishing to inflict” that on anyone, any more than with the other examples.

If we had a system of PR along the lines of that in Germany, politics in the UK would be conducted very differently and we'd get a more representative legislative body.

No - wishing illness on someone is unacceptable .

That poster who doesn’t agree with assisted dying isn’t necessarily wishing anyone get unwell in the first place to have to die a painful death.

And they are presumably prepared to die without it if they are unfortunate to get a terminal illness.

Not everyone who gets these illnesses want assisted dying to be legalised so it’s not the gotcha you think it is.

If you mean what I think you mean that’s a vile and unhinged comment to make. Shameful.

Yes we have particularly bad politicians now. When I was growing up we had serious politicians who had often been in the war (eg Denis Healey generation) or worked in serious jobs like Margaret Thatcher etc. I feel that we live in unserious times and people have had it easy for so long they've got lazy and trivial which is reflected in our politicians. That may change when we get the financial crash which is just around the corner or have a war which is also possible.

Is it vile? I think if someone wants to inflict these horrors on someone, indeed everyone else then they have to be prepared to suffer it themselves. Presumably they are. Or are they like the lib dem voters of Piddington?

I’m very sorry as it sounds like you’re in a tough place but I think the majority of those concerned with this bill were concerned with the implications of it for vulnerable members of society who could be pressured into making awful choices. It’s a very difficult piece of legislation to get right.

“Most restrictions of choice are considered primitive and old fashioned”

Certainly not. Virtually the entirety of the law invokes restricting choice, in order to promote other goods or prevent other harms.

Do you really think existence of most of our law is primitive and old fashioned?

Why do we keep electing politicians who don't represent us
I mean, it's not like you're spoilt for good choice, are you? You keep electing terrible politicians, because there's only terrible politicians available in the political buffet.

I have yet to see a politician that isn't a lying, selfish, fraudulent, criminal, corrupt, problematic pasted, greedy, power-hungry, dubious self-serving bag of rotten egg crap. Decent people with morals and values don't want to be politicians and represent their peers, because they know the kind of idiots they'll be forced to deal with on a daily basis. Also, let's be honest - someone decent and righteous won't survive amongst the barracudas that are politicians. Literally, someone will want to plot their death. Because politicians don't like or want good people to interfere with their dirty work.

You’ve misunderstood those who oppose the bill quite grotesquely.

I think a lot of damage is done to politics by people who can’t imagine that people who disagree with them may be motivated by good motive, but see different dangers or weigh different priorities differently.

It’s how the TRAs work themselves into a lather at JKR’s genocidal intent. They won’t ever remove the blinkers because they don’t have the common-sense voice that says “hang on, it seems unlikely that she really wants us all to die horribly. Maybe there’s something I’m missing”.

I’m not clear what you mean.

We restrict choice in all sorts of circumstances because of the risk of wider harms.

I’m generally in favour of choice so would like, in principle, for us to have found a system that allows for legal assisted dying.

But the bill was shocking and so was the process by which it came about.

MPs debated the bill, and the more they learned about it the less they liked it. They then ultimately voted against.

I’m sure some of them were persuaded by the fact that, near universally, disability groups (whose members might be expected to be significantly more like than most to have a terminal illness, ie to bear the suffering that this bill intended to relieve) believed this was a bad bill.

I don’t see how voting that down is an example of the political process working poorly. Can you explain?

What was poor, however, was introducing this as a private members bill, thus bypassing most of the usual groundwork that goes into legislating well.

Your OP doesn't make sense. Brexit was an example of direct democracy voted for by the public and a majority of voters supported it. Afterwards even the politicians who were pro EU worked to implement the will of the people. In 2019, the Tories ran on a manifesto of Get Brexit Done and they were returned with a landslide.

Regarding assisted dying, this was not a direct vote by the public, it was not in the manifesto and MPs voted according to their own conscience and research. I don't disagree with assisted dying but it was a very bad piece of legislation.

No one is wishing that for you. Normal people don’t think like that.