When parliamentarians’ views are at odds with those of their constituents.

Today, views expressed online have been sharply divided on the issue of whether parliamentarians should represent the predominant views of their constituents, or put forward their own views on the issue of same sex marriage.

Following publication of ABS statistics indicating the contrast between the views of voters versus the views of their elected representatives, most posts and tweets have savaged parliamentarians such as Tony Abbott, an unequivocal opponent of same sex marriage even though 75% of voters in his electorate voted Yes.

Perhaps a significant positive that may come out of this regrettable and unnecessary postal survey is that the break down of votes cast has exposed the huge discrepancy between sitting members and their constituents. Many angry electors have voiced disgust at not having their overwhelmingly dominant views represented by their members – often vowing to remember this at the next election.

A few voices have attempted to come to the defence of their members of parliament, by thanking them for taking a stand on principle in spite of the views of their constituents. Some have suggested that electors who chose to elect a known opponent of same sex marriage should expect that member to  remain opposed irrespective of public sentiment.

I prefer the view that MHRs are elected to represent views that are dominant in their electorates. To suggest that MHRs are chosen largely for their own views, ignores the reality that the vast majority of electors are known to vote for a party or leader of a party and are often unable to name local candidates. It also overlooks that we may vote for a candidate on the basis of some of her or his views while being at odds with the candidate’s views on other issues. Electors only get one vote to elect a politician, while he or she will vote on many issues. To truly represent their electorate, MHRs need to gauge the sentiment of their electorate on key issues. Integrity and principle require politicians to separate their own views from those of the electors they represent. They are not in parliament because of their wisdom, integrity, profound knowledge or intelligence (as the dual citizenship farce has demonstrated) but rather, because a political party has put them up for election, and because of their promises to represent the people of the electorate in accordance with a wide ranging policy platform.

Senators have a more persuasive case for suggesting that they represent a view held by a minority of voters in a state. However, on this basis Senators should remain conscious of the voting intentions of other Senators from their state. As we know that Senators tend to vote along party rather than state lines, perhaps it is more appropriate to suggest that it is desirable for Senators to take a staunch stance on an issue such as same sex marriage, if that stance is consistent with their policy platform when elected, and reflective of community sentiments in their state, in the context of commuity views represented by other Senators from their state or by the Senate as a whole.

Perhaps the exposure of the chasm between the views of our politician and their constituents will serve to expel or at least reduce the number of pontificating moralists who clearly see their election as a right to impose their religious bigotry on us.