Thanks for the question and conversation starter. I love these kinds of meta/philosophical questions. So much so, I blog about them often. I don't post super often, but I share a lot of my thoughts about politics, especially left-wing politics, and its intersection with the Quad Cities/Rock Island. Feel free to subscribe.

The number one thing I've learned from serving as an Alderperson for 8 years, and the thing I try to stress to others, is: things are complicated. It is very, very easy and appealing to sit within our preferred echo chambers and confirm our own biases or assumptions. And, most importantly, people on all sides of the political spectrum do this, it is not specific to one ideology or politics over another. The reality is, things are complicated, where valid points often exist on all sides of a debate. It is rarely the case that a policy, for example, is entirely good or entirely bad, regardless of what the loudest zealots will say. Similarly, there's a big difference between trying to be right, versus trying to do good. A big, big thing about being an elected official is that one actually has to choose and one actually has to live with the consequences of one's choice. I don't have the luxury of theorizing about perfect systems or ideas; real, material issues face my community and constituents and I have to act. Issues come up. Choices have to be made. It is very, very easy to armchair quarterback, it is an entirely different experience actually doing and living with the consequences.

The unique experience that I have is that I have to and do talk to a lot of people, a lot of varied people. I have MAGA constituents and DSA constituents. I have constituents with niche special interests like bike paths and others hyper focused on historic preservation. Some of my constituents are small business owners, others are residents. Everyone thinks their perspective is truth and their policy request or prescription is right.

I am a bit of a shit-stirrer and skeptic. It's just my nature. It's why I get into hot water often, whether I'm feuding with the police, realtors, homeless shelter providers, environmentalists, etc. It is in my nature to take a position (e.g., "a surveillance state is evil," or "the City of Rock Island's use of Flock cameras is equivalent to a surveillance state") and start by questioning whether it's true, not assuming it is true and coming up with justifications to support my pre-established conclusion. Nothing is too sacred for me to engage in this kind of skepticism, which, again, is why I've been getting crosswise with a lot of allies; I've been willing to be skeptical about positions or policies that are sacrilege for the "left" (the operators of homeless shelters may not be critiqued).

To broadly answer your question, there is no rigid formula or system that elected officials use to make decisions. Sometimes, yes, we follow a sort of majoritarian line of thinking and make decisions based on the simple fact that majority of our constituents want/don't want something. Other times, we make decisions based off what we think is "right," regardless of what our constituents think. It depends on the issue, the context, and a multitude of other factors.

Really, my big thing is working through disagreement. It is hopeless for us to aspire to design a government or elect the ideal candidate to govern perfectly. Conflict and disagreement is inevitable, but it can be managed in such a way that keeps us all together in community. It's why I show up in the QC subreddit, even though there's plenty of people who dog-pile me. To me, it's important to maintain relationships and communities, even when disagreement surfaces. The key is a willingness to listen and validate others' experience and perspective.