A question for democracy

As the country goes into the 15th Lok Sabha elections, I am musing about a rather fundamental question about voter behaviour: In the General Elections, should one vote on local issues or national issues. I have thought about this long and hard and found arguments in support of either case. It is really difficult to decide which option is right. I hope someone is able to enlighten me by offering the right logic. 

On the one hand, there is the case where you vote for a large national party keeping in mind the government that you want to see at the centre. You would vote based on macro-issues such as inflation, unemployment, trade, new investments, education, defence et al. On the other hand there is the case where you vote on local issues keeping in mind the performance of your local MP and the record of the other candidates for your constituency. Here it boils down to more local issues such as local infrastructure, local schoools and colleges, local investments and the like. 

There are plausible arguments in favour of either option. Let's take the first case first - Voting on national issues: In a multi-party democracy like India where there are a large number of regional players, it is difficult to keep track of the agenda of each party. The smaller the players, the narrower the issues that they fight elections on. So when you're voting to put a government up at the centre, shouldn't you vote for parties which contest on national issues and possess the wherewithal to run a nation? Also, if you're voting for a local party or an independent, you are more likely than not to be contributing to a fractured mandate and a hung parliament at the centre.

The second option - Voting on local issues: After all, it's your local leader who is responsible for your development. He/She is the individual who is allocated the funds for your constituency. It is the local MP who has more hands-on knowledge about the problems that you face at the local level and can represent your voice accurately at the national level in the lower house. Local investments and infrastructure projects may be initiated by this individual. Moreover, there is the 'Wisdom of crowds' theory of James Surowiecki which states that for the decisions of a large group of people to be accurate it is important for those individual decisions to be independent. Hence, every constituent of a crowd should vote based on his needs and interests, without considering how the rest of the crowd behaves or in this case votes. 

I have been racking my brains over this issue and have found no definitive argument that would tip the contest in favour of either of these choices. I need to come across a sound rational logic that would convince me of the superiority of either of these cases. It is an important question - one that deserves to be mused upon and answered. Even if I do not ultimately find an answer to this question, I am sure I will be wiser at the end of the day. I will have understood the nature of  democracy and the importance of having a representative government. Being a part of the largest democracy in the world, this is the bare minimum I owe the nation - and more importantly, myself.