代議制是近現代民主的常軌，「代表」則是人民主權理念得以部份落實的主要機制。在理論上，「代表」理當重現(re-present)人民的心聲和利益，然而在實際政治運作中，此種期望不免有所落差，甚或全然落空。因此自代表制實施以來，如何縮短和避免此一落差，便成為民主政治的主要課題。本文的目的是嘗試就代表的規範理論著眼，一方面考察英、美、法三國憲政史上有關「代表制」所引發的爭議；另一方面則擬據此回探我國憲政史上中央民代與民意關係的變遷，進而依據現有的抽樣訪談資料，分析我國選民對於中央民代的認知和期望，我們相信藉由經驗與規範的對話，將有助於政治現象的理解與釐清。 Representation is a general rule of modem democracy and a major mechanism through which the idea of popular sovereignty is realized. In theory, representatives should re-present the voices and interests of the people; in practice, however, they are not always satisfactory. How to level the difference between theory and practice of representation becomes therefore a significant issue in democratic theory. This essay is intended to explore both the normative and empirical sides of the problem. We first review some renowned representation theories, then compare them with constitutional practice. Against this theoretical background and with the empirical data collected from some recent interviews, we try to analyze the cognition and expectation of Taiwanese electorate toward their legislators. We believe a dialogue between normative and empirical studies will enhance our understanding of this important political question.