There's been a fair bit of blog coverage of the Power Inquiry's findings which if you are interested in the interaction between electorate and elected representatives you might want to read.
I have to admit I'm sceptical about some of the recommendations; for example, the claims made for electoral reform. I don't think that changing the electoral system will automatically increase participation, and that even if it did that this would necessarily create better governance. That said, I'd be amongst the first to acknowledge that we do need to do something about turnout.
I'm also not a big fan of referendum politics, but recognise that in some quarters consultation isn't good enough. I still believe that representative democracy is a better system than direct democracy, but want to find better ways to bring services more in line with what people aspire to.
On balance, I guess I support the general thrust of what the report is arguing - that we need to find a new way to develop our political discourse, that politicians should be open to working with communities to develop more responsive services, that the electorate can feel disenfranchised by representative democracy.
But at the same time I think (and I would wouldn't I) that elected politicians do somethings that society wants, we try (imperfectly) to bring about changes to society that improve the commonweal, we try (again imperfectly) to balance the needs of competing interests, and we step aside when you've had enough of us.
Update: Looks like you can
leave your comments on the report on this site as well as letting me know why I'm wrong about PR.