No. This comes down to the question of who do you want your Congressman to represent, a Party or the district? For example, a candidate is on the ticket of a Party that wants to eliminate certain Government Departments. However, that Department employs a large number of people in your district. Most people are not going to be altruistic and want to eliminate their jobs.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that people would vote for the candidate that is promising to cut local jobs?
Let's say its a Republican candidate whose Party wants to eliminate the EPA, which has a large facility in his district. Suppose further, it is a heavily dominated Republican district. They would be in favor of every other Republican Party issue, except that one. The candidate would thus downplay that issue and promise the constituents the jobs won't be lost. Thus, he represents the district, not the Party.
He would downplay the issue yes. But would he work to change it? Would they have a real option of voting for someone they agree with, when they in practice will vote for whomever the republican party chooses as a candidate?
Ok, that makes sense. It sounds exactly like democracy is supposed to work, with the politicians representing the people, whether or not they're part of a larger party.
Wouldn't that still happen, no matter the voting system we use? It just seems to me that range voting or another alternate system more easily allows more options.
How about them representing those who voted for them? Currently in the US they represent a party, because each party can only effectively have one candidate. This is an effect of the First-Past-the-Post system. If you don't want them to represent a party, that needs to be abolished.