“We did not send him there to vote his conscience. We did not send him there to do the right thing or whatever he said he was doing. We sent him there to represent us.”

Dave Ball, chair of the Washington County GOP, unloaded on U.S. Senator Pat Toomey’s (R-PA) vote to convict former Pres. Donald Trump. Ball was not alone in his excoriation of the seven Republican senators who sided with Senate Democrats.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who voted to acquit Trump on constitutional grounds, labeled the vote as one of conscience for Republicans. In D.C. parlance, this meant the party leadership structure in the Senate would not use this vote to reward or punish members, nor would it “whip” the votes to encourage conviction or acquittal. McConnell’s latitude did not flow to state party structures. Senators Sasse (R-NE) and Cassidy (R-LA) have been formally censured by their state parties, as has Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), for her vote to impeach Trump.

As long as there have been republican forms of government, there have been arguments about representation. The people themselves are not empowered to make choices directly, but their elected officials choose on their behalf. The nature of that relationship is at the root of the current controversy. Is the representative delegated authority, so they may only act within the will of their constituents, or are they trustees, using judgment to do what they think best?

The trustee approach is most often associated with Edmund Burke, the Irish politician who served in the British House of Parliament. In his famous Speech to the Electors of Bristol, Burke posits that the ideal relationship between the representative and his constituents should be harmonious, and normally it is, or the representative would never be chosen. In fact, the connection should be so close that the representative should never put his own interests or benefits above those he represents. What might be good for him personally should not supersede what is good for his district or the nation.

Still, Burke reasons, the most precious resource the representative brings to the relationship is judgment.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

This sort of tension between representative and voters is unusual for two reasons. Most politicians are unable to stand in the breach if it occurs. When forced to choose, they will side with their constituents. It is the safest course because it likely secures their seats. Also, the few issues hot enough to inflame public opinion were often part of the electoral calculation. Representatives were chosen because of their positions on predictably divisive issues.

Burke’s language is the bedrock of republicanism. Our founders understood the necessary role of representatives. Idealized, they would refine the steaming passions of public opinion into workable policies. Elections check the extent and nature of the refining. If representatives stray, they may pay, although it is rare. Armed incumbents are daunting. They bring name recognition, resources, and long-standing relationships to the contest.

We are nearly two years from the next federal election. There are many variables at work. Former President Trump’s profile may rise or fall. The donor class may decide Trump is good or bad for business, and the money will flow accordingly to his defenders or attackers. Party leaders will have to discern their margins to see if every seat is precious and worth defending. Primary challengers will mostly waste someone’s money, but a few will make a dent. The next election cycle will tell us a great deal about the future of the G.O.P.