S. Dakota's Aborts Abortion Law. Why?

I know I'm waaaay late with commentary on this, but this post's been percolating and I now have the time and inclination to write it.

For those of you who don't know, South Dakota's State Assembly passed the most restrictive abortion ban in America, and the Gov signed it. Presumably, it was meant as a test case to get Roe v. Wade back on the Supreme Court docket. For those of you expecting an in depth discussion about abortion, this post will disappoint. I'm looking at this from a political view, particularly the relation between elected official and constituent.

So here we go.

The SD House passed the bill 47-22.

The SD Senate passed the bill 23-12.

The SD voters rejected the bill 56%-44%.

I'm fascinated by those numbers. Look at them again. SD elected officials felt that there was enough of a demand for this particular law that both chambers passed it by about 2-1, yet the voters quashed it 12 points.

Why? Is it because the SD legislators are that out of touch with their voters? Said another way, how could they think there was this overwhelming mandate for something that lost by a fairly significant margin? If the Legislature is a form of sampling, then this result is way outside the margin of error for this issue. Or is it that this bill was pushed by a vocal minority, and SD's elected officials lacked the courage or will to represent their constituents in the face of a well planned strategy by the Pro-life crowd. Or did the SD Legislature take the Specter Method and vote for something they knew wouldn't fly in the hopes that the voters would reject it in the election (here the electorate backstops the cowardice not the Courts in the Official Arlen Specter Method of Leadership). Or does the fault rest with the voters? Do they elect officials based on factors that do not represent their true will or desires? This would be the "you get what you deserve in a Democracy" view.

Again, this post is not about Abortion rights, its about the very obvious disconnect that occurred in South Dakota. This is especially perplexing given all the ways that elected officials can communicate with, or receive information from the electorate. Taking that a step further, SD has a population of about 755,000, for a representative to voter ratio of about 11,000 to 1. What happens at the national level where the ratio is about 690,000 to 1? (Obviously, the disparity is even greater in the Senates)

Like I said, I'm still percolatin' on this, but I do think it shows the danger of any elected body saying/assuming it has some sort of mandate when it acts. Elections often come down to two or three issues, some not even relevant to legislating, yet those legislators vote on hundreds of bills. The "mandate" that got you elected (you weren't Mark Foley), may not be the "mandate" that says you should pass a bill (you need reinstate the draft). Both voters and officials need to understand this.