I think in some cases you can make an argument that voting one way is the “right” thing to do. In that case I think it's the duty of the policymaker to do the “right” thing.

However, there are other cases where there isn't necessarily a “right” thing. The question is just what the people want. For example (a bad one, it's late), do the people want big government or small government? I can see an argument that both a big or a small government could work out, but would have different effects on the people. Big government would limit freedom but theoretically ensure more fairness in the system. Small government would allow more freedom but as a consequence would be limited in its ability to intervene when something happens that is unfair to one party or another. In that case, there is an element of “what is right?”, but there is also an element of “what do the people want? what do you value more: freedom or fairness?”.

So, in short, I think it depends on the question being considered (and even then it is not a clear-cut answer, as it isn't with the health care debate which could be framed in either way — “what is right?” or “what do the people want?”)

http://mises.org/econsense/ch60.asp

Sadly, it's usually tainted and an example of misused language, in seeking passage of controversial or bad legislation (as the Dems have done this year) or more generally, such as when referring to voting to raise taxes. “Courage”….

It’s an age-old question: If elected to public office, is it your primary duty to vote your conscience, or vote the conscience of a majority of your constituents, even if the latter runs counter to the former?