Do they? The UK's representational democracy has major problems but it's [supposed to be] about having MPs who work for the people, not having rulers.

Do you want someone to rule over you?

If they weren't rulers, you could simply choose not to comply with those rules you found irrelevant or misguided. I note that you felt constrained to add the bracketed bit -- I would submit that that's the fig leaf.

You can argue that the doctor is being helpful when they tell a four-year-old "this won't hurt a bit", but the naked truth is that it's a lie, and the child has no actual choice in the matter. Similarly, you can argue that your MP or state senator has your best interests at heart (and some may!), but that doesn't mean they don't rule you.

The rule is by consensus in a democracy, law is an expression of that consensus. The constraint comes from the people, the demos, and not from some tyrant.

MPs are supposed to work for us, those with power wish to reduce the scope of "us" and some MPs are there specifically to enable that. But anti-democratic MPs doesn't alter the lack of rulers in a proper democracy it just changes whether our (UK) political system is a proper democracy or not.

I don’t know anyone that wants management that can never be replaced.

This is not an accurate description of a constitutional monarch’s role, either de jure or de facto.