It's not. The kind of behaviour being discussed is corruption. It wouldn't be dismissing representatives for a vote on any one issue; it would be dismissing representatives for corruption. But the electorate prefers to re-elect corrupt politicians as long as the corruption is in their favor, so the behaviour continues.

There's no allegation that the Governor has been bribed, the bill becomes law soon even if she doesn't sign it, and it's only been on her desk for two business days.

That's not what we're discussing. Up-thread, I responded to:

"...paid-off politicians who act on behalf of a few oligarchs to block popular policy changes".

That behavior, if it is happening, is what I'm claiming is corruption, even that kind of behaviour is the norm nowadays, and voters don't vote this kind of corruption out, or even call it out as corruption.

> There's no allegation that the Governor has been bribed...

Correct. The allegation is as I quoted above. It is not my allegation; I'm merely discussing appropriate voting behaviour if it were true.

Not according to the article:

"A spokesperson for the governor's office told VICE's Motherboard on October 31 that "Governor Hochul is reviewing the legislation." Asked about the bill's status today by Ars Technica, a spokesperson responded that "Governor Hochul is reviewing the legislation."

> The bill was delivered to the governor Friday, according to the New York Senate's bill tracker, though she has been considering it since late June.

That's what representation means. It isn't intended to end when ballots are counted.

People can contact their representatives. Each representative has a paid staff to accommodate the scale of that communication.

If you can show that the average consistuent in a district has a shared opinion, and that opinion is being overruled by their representative, then you have illustrated the failure of representation.

If you can show a pattern where the opinions of a minority group are being chosen over an opinionated majority, then you have illustrated the corruption of that representative.

On right-to-repair, from their constituiencies? Likely nothing. I'm an avid consumer of news, including local, and there's been very little coverage of it.

> If you can show that the average consistuent in a district has a shared opinion, and that opinion is being overruled by their representative, then you have illustrated the failure of representation.

Nah. Politics is complicated and full of compromise; sometimes you give in on one battle to win another.

> If you can show a pattern where the opinions of a minority group are being chosen over an opinionated majority, then you have illustrated the corruption of that representative.

Or a pattern of upholding minority rights, a core component of our Constitution.

Good.

There tend to be downsides of political systems that don't have elected representatives.

Uh, no. That’s an absurd assertion. The Governor is another branch, that exists as a check and balance on the legislature. That’s why they have the veto power.

The gov was just as voted-in as the rest of them, too. The will of the voters in both branches.