Good reply except I have noticed a chink in your armour so to speak.
This part of the reply to be specific:
Originally Posted by G4Z 
Firstly you say it is your job to do what you believe to be in the best interests of constituents, I disagree I think it is your job to represent the views and the interests of your constituents whether you agree with them or not.
If the MP doesn't eat out of a dogs bowl he will cotton onto this sentence and can quite easily reply by saying his vote(which you disagreed with) was cast because his constituents felt that way so he voted for it although he disagreed. Thus he justifies his vote by your statement and can continue to rule your argument invalid because that statement would then be used against you saying you need to accept the other constituents views.
I am not sure how to correct it to safe guard yourself but I thought I'd let you know that its a possible flaw within your reply. I just thought of how I would find a hole in your argument and I found this... hope it helps
