[lnanek2]

You seem to be agreeing with the quote. Note it doesn't say no one represents them. It says no single member. Influence spread across all members isn't really going to get much work done for them as if they had their own specific to their problems who considered it their job to represent them and talk about them, etc..

[mikeash]

I agree with the first part and disagree with the second part. I agree that no single member of Congress represents these people. (Hard to disagree, since that's just a simple objective fact.) I disagree that this somehow equates to "without representation."

We can do this for any issue which is not related to state/district borders. No single member of Congress represents urban Americans, or rural Americans, or WoW players, or hair stylists. Would we say that they pay taxes without representation? Of course not. Why are expats any different?

I lived abroad for several years and I never felt like I was without representation. I voted and had elected officials the same as my fellow Americans. The degree to which I'm represented in Congress (i.e. nobody is really answerable to me, but I can write to them and get a form letter back if I feel like wasting some time, and once every couple of years I get to pretend like my vote matters) was no different at that time than it is now.

[VLM]

"No single member of Congress represents urban Americans, or rural Americans"

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the level of gerrymandering we have implemented, which makes it feel unfair when a distinct property owning group (say, retirees in Costa Rica) don't have their own gerrymandered pet politician just like the yuppies or inner city poor or rednecks have in congress.

Unevenly enforcing a corrupt system feels worse than merely having a corrupt system.

[PopeOfNope]

They can't all pitch in and hire a lobbyist, like every other special interest group?