Don't be fatuous. You know exactly what I mean.
Unfortunately, while I may know what you meant, you didn't get what I meant.
Whilst Kennedy is representing you, there are a bunch of folks on the right not being represented. That's not really fair to them, is it?
Dude, compared to you, Kennedy is on the right!
In fact, I bet you wouldn't even vote for his nephew-in-law!
You assume that I agree with Kennedy's policies. But if I didn't agree with any of them, he would still be my representative. I understand that this doesn't match your view, but that's the way I view it. If I don't like it, I'll move. But that's the way geographical representation works. Sure, he may not be a proponent of my social or economic policies (and don't assume he isn't, I'm making a point), but he's still charged to be a proponent of my interests (and the interests of the rest of his constituents). If he chooses not to, then he'll eventually be voted out (recalled! ;P).
Why are you assuming that anyone not GOP or Democrat is some ultra-extremist? The Greens and Libertarians have some radical ideals, but I wouldn't classify them as extremist.
Because I met too many of them. Oh, and you remember when I said that everyone thinks that their view is in the center (or close to it)? My point made.
LOL, I have yet to meet anyone that says, "yup, I'm an extremist."
Even if they were, why should people who don't want the GOP or Democrats, not be represented?
Like I said, they are. Maybe not their policies, but their interests are. If you try to measure it by ideology you'll never win. No matter how close someone is to you, or if they are in your party, you still won't agree with every policy they have. Where do you draw the line? If we all became one party under the Libertarian flag, we'd still find something else to disagree about. Then are we still not represented?
In the end, the only promise that can be made to you, is that your interests will be represented, not your policies.