Look what happened to the govenor of California
He was doing stuff widely supported by a few folks... so the majority got mad & fired hisbutt mid term and put someone else in.
That someone then gets accused of doing what shouldnt be done- letting the people vote on stuff. What better way to serve the people that to let the people vote on the issues rather thanmaking guesses about what silent folks want.

Majority rules.
Without that concept, we get a few leaders making decisions like the MuncieMoneyPit to pleasure a minority.
------warning: hypothetical example & numbers, dont throw the semantics flag-----------------
If 30% of the members wanted the moneypit, and 70% didnt want it... should a leader show that 'strong principles, ideas, moral fiber, background' and do it cause that leader likes it & will stand up for what he wants against the 70% of the membership? Is that showing Conviction & Dedication, or a blind eye to the people he is suposed to represent.

Again, California had a ballot that passed by a good majority: Marriage is only between a man & a woman. That is what the peoiple voted in.... then the next session the representative legislature ammended it: ....And same sex mairriages. Very strong principles of the legislature to stand up against what the people just voted in. But they did perservere and eventually defeated the will of the people. Yea! for the reps, they showed that no good voting majority who's who.

Why not have a district level ballot just after the election: Get a list of 20 or 30 causes the Leader wants to champion, and see which ones are not what the majority wants. Then have the leader move with great zeal on the favored causes. The bold and moral fibred ideas of the leader should take a back seat if the majority doesnt want that. Like taking down the MoneyPit, see if the mojority doesnt oppose that idea before you boldly leader crusade it.