Sort:  

They do represent you, they also represent the neighbor you cant stand. The problem is we have less than 50% turnout, and the only people who run are the people I wouldnt want representing me. If it didnt cost millions to attempt to get elected, we would have more/better options to find the one who comes the closest to representing us. You are the only person who will fully represent you, but the elected officials represent all of us whether we like it or not.

you're using the word 'represent' differently than I would.

How would you use it? Their title alone says that they represent the United States of America, and therefore Americans like you and I. Whether you agree with our representatives as far as their opinions and their actions, that is a different and much less likely scenario.

How would I use it?
I'd follow the constitution..both the letter of the law and the intent.
which means that there would be about 30thousand representatives..
enough so that each one of them knew each and every one of their constituents personally.
the manner in which we are NOT following the constitution at present has broken the system.

that is a whole lot more salaries, benefits, flights and hotels the taxpayer would have to pay. I am not sure more is better, well at least not that many more.
I would prefer instead to return the federal government to core missions i.e. defense and interstate commerce and make every effort to push the petty crap they typically deal with back down to individual states. Let States decide if Planned parenthood can operate and if so under what limitations, let states decide how to use infrastructure money, let states decide health insurance. This would of course require a change in taxes to allocate more to states and less to federal, but that is a big first step towards recovery.

The Iron Law of Bureaucracy is not your friend.
oh..and why, with today's technology, do all of the congress critters have to BE in DC?