{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01674641148325359, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.246268656716418, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
FLIP-FLOPPING IN A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY


 This paper addresses an important question in normative political theory—Main Question: In a representative democracy, can a member of a legislature legitimately flip-flop and vote in accordance with the majority view on Issue when she—prior to getting knowledge, through a referendum result, of what the majority view is on Issue—has defended and recommended to voters a view that is logically inconsistent with the majority view? This paper defends an affirmative answer to the Main Question. The last section raises the question of whether the trustee view of what obligations a legislator has in a representative democracy toward her constituents is mistaken. An alternative to the trustee view is presented and discussed, and it is concluded that this alternative view is implausible.