I fully agree that as our elected representative your duty is to lead by your own judgment, not tally up tick marks of popular sentiment and vote according to a majority on every issue that comes up. Ours is a representative democracy, not a direct one. We try to elect the representative who—by our own lights—has the best judgment so that they can make what we hope are good decisions. That said, when you’re acting on an opinion that is so far out of alignment with that of your constituency, you would do well to elaborate at some length about your justification for doing so.

This missive is the opposite of that. You devote a single paragraph to vaguely explaining your rationale in a way that demonstrates no critical or comparative analysis of the candidates. The rest of the piece is spent talking not about your decision but as a meta-discussion justifying that it’s your place and duty to make a decision that’s resolutely of touch with your constituency.

I don’t expect to agree with every decision my representatives make, and I try not to have many litmus tests. Governance is more subtle than that. But I do expect them to be able to provide sound, thorough reasoning for their decisions. This piece misses that mark.