A 'no' is always a 'no', don't look much into the fact that it was a fairly close 'no'.
When a candidate makes a big deal during a campaign about how they voted against the grain on a particularity thorny issue that pleased a lot of voters in their district, take it with a huge grain of salt and a hard look at their broader voting record.
It seems like such a process would automatically bias votes against the will of the people and in favor of the lobbyists, since at the end of the day it is the lobbyists that are actually paying attention to your voting record on issues and are likely to withhold campaign donations during the next election.
The House majority has 33 more seats than the minority, despite losing the popular vote by over a million votes. To me, this is the epitome of how broken Washington is. Pennsylvania has 13 Republican representatives and 5 Democrat reps, even though Democrats won the popular vote, 50.28% to 48.77%.
If the difference between the two tallies is off by more than 33%, then there is something fundamentally broken. It allows candidates to spew extremist views, because they won't be challenged in their home district.
I don't see how that would help unless they were somehow prevented from conspiring (i.e., discussing their votes ahead of time).