Yes, when you choose a representative he acts on your behalf. If you hire a lawyer to argue a speeding ticket, for instance, and he accepts a fine then you are beholden to his decision. That's how representatives work.
The "third option" you ask for is trial, up to the Supreme Court to determine if the law was constitutional or not.
Again, it was "No taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION."
If you cannot rob your neighbor or extort money from them, you don't have that right, tell me exactly how can you possibly have "your representatives" have extort money from them and call it tax?
If you cannot write some words on magic paper, and force your neighbor to obey, and if he doesn't, cage him or kill him, yourself, without any third party, because you don't have such rights, naturally, tell me how "your representatives", have such a right to "legislate" on your behalf?
And your rights don't come from a magic peace of paper, that you call "constitution". Your rights come from nature, by birth. Just like we did not make laws of physics and mathematics, (like gravity or speed of light etc) we did not make natural law regarding human interactions either. We rather, discover them. And live according to them.
The only natural law is survival of the fittest. Society is humans' species specific adaptation which made us the fittest. Government is what society has created to protect the weaker members of society.
The elected representatives are vested with more power because people have granted it to them. This was done because that power is necessary for protecting people. There is no magic here, these are simple principles that, to date, have worked. The great thing about our government is that you have a voice in who has that power.
The problem with Anarchy is that it does nothing to protect the "weak." (Well, that and the fact that the type of person who seeks power will still do so, and most likely violently, without a government to protect the people... Meaning that a few days after you removed our representative government you'd have a nice military dictatorship.)
Survival of the fittest does not mean what you think it means. It means the species who fit the environment best who survives, in the context of evolution and a species becoming instinct. For example, in a post nuclear war scenario, cockroaches are better fit to survive in a nuclear winter than humans. It is not even about inra-species conflicts.
Intra-species lethal violence is practically non-existent even in non-human species.
Government is not "what society has created". And it does not "protect the weaker members". That simply is an illusion. The poorest %10 of the population in a free market country is better off than average person in a big government socialist or communist country.
"The elected representatives are vested with more power because people have granted it to them."
You cannot grant anyone else something you don't have. If you do not have the right to extort money out of your neighbour by threats of violence, with the lie that you will protect them in return (it is called extortion or protection racket if non-state organizations do it)
Please tell me, how well the state worked to protect their people, when the state turned against their own people, killed their own citizens in democides. 263 million people have been mass murdered by their own government in 20'th century alone. This dwarfs even how many people of other countries governments killed, in 2 world wars (around 100 million).
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
Please tell me, if governments protect the weak against the strong, who protects the weak from their own government?
There is very little difference between what you call "representative government" and "military dictatorship". Look at the democide list. They have all risen to power by democratic elections, in a representative democracy.