There are two main theories of representative democracy, the representative theory and the delegate theory. If you hold that officials are put into office to carry out the views of their constituents then you basically have a more efficient way to carry out direct democracy. The United States was largely founded on the other point of view, the delegate theory. This idea holds that representatives are elected because they are the most qualified, intelligent people for the job. At that point they are supposed to act as stewards and make responsible decisions not subject to the whims of the populace.

In reality our system incorporates some of both theories. With the high availability of scientific polling, a politician can generally know what his constituents want and should certainly take that into account. On the other hand, the general populace is often stupid, misinformed and subject to fast changes in opinion. Since politicians often come from elite educated backgrounds and have vast resources available to them, they should be able to make better decisions than your average citizen. A great example of this is the TARP plan which is wildly unpopular and is also perhaps the greatest American legislative success of the past two decades. Of course, no matter how educated a politician is, they still have their own ideology and opinion and it would be unrealistic to expect them to ignore it. There's a lot more to representative democracy than just doing what your constituents want.

TL;DR No