A first-person, may let a rep, to represent him/her/them within an affirmed-range. e.g:
For example, Mr.F is your favorite, a role-model, and therefore, a fine aff-rep, too. Yet, on issues of animal-food and health, if Miss D. is preferrable, then she may represent, as a fork-rep for those ranges.
If Mr.F and Miss.D are to represent at a range, e.g. in the health-field, and if either is fine, or if they work different aspects of the issue, you do not have to vote only for one of them. If Mr.F is willing to support a form of health-support, Miss.D another, then let them represent a percent (50-50, or any ratio), of your right/resource/vote. They gather these from any first who prefer them. i.e: Mr.F would probably, not only represent a third of your resource, at that range. Thousands, or millions may accumulate.
If Mr.A is a rep, and he lets Mr.B to represent him, about animal-food-hygiene, then not only his own vote, but all those who are represented by him, are also represented by Mr.B, if:
This is at any level. For example, if Mr.A is represented by Mr.B, who is represented by Mr.X, then, if Mr.X may let a new rep to represent him, then
It is about the nature of the contract. For example, a firmer who is to manage a fund (as moo-duh-rah-beh) may not let another rep to do it. (cf. a fiqh text)
Any rep may announce, what you would really not prefer. They all inform you, for your (implicit) affirming, and it is your right to reject, too. After you learn of the case, you may reject such decisions on a case basis. Then, act in as a first-rep, or affirm another rep - maybe a rep possibly with no past or future relevance to you. You may affirm him/her only for this occasion.
Informed with the announcement/report (e.g: through e-mail) that you regularly receive, from any rep. And web-pages for issues/debates, and web pages of each representative may provide public data.)
A Newsweek article in 1992 (or so) pointed out that, "a lot of USA citizens do not think health-insurance is needed, and they are right. They do not have health problems." (And how would the insurrers cover it, if it were vice versa?) Personal preference, it is. Thereby, a first, may prefer to opt, for example, to invest more at formaze, for a re*education, instead of infirmaze, the health-system. Or, vice versa, if he/she is concerned with health - to the exclusion of education. Any ratio is fine.
In a world, with freedom, as with formaze, a question is: "what's the use of a rep?" Well, it is about convenience. Weigh it yourself, whether your rep is any good. A few to note:
A formazer-rep is finest, if for a framework, rather than suggest every point that the first may want to explore.
By contrast, a firmer, as a firmazer-rep, must (found, and) manage a firm - after the first and rep, specify the framework. i.e: Thereafter, that is the firmer, who may explore whatever option to fit, within that framework, for a revenue/profit, and what to avoid.
A registered-R is a fine example, as armaze is a form of affirmaze.