Alston and the Ethics of Representation

A Interesting article was published today over at Mother Jones referencing the unenviable dilemma faced by local lawmakers who are torn between personal convictions and accurately representing their constituency. Though Maryland delegate Tiffany Alston may not be a prime example of upstanding campaign behavior (given the cash skimming for her own wedding referenced in the article), her situation - waffling on a bill she believed in to reflect the expressed will of the citizens she represents- is nothing new.

"I had no idea what to do," said Alston (D-Prince George's). "I feel really strongly that people who love each other should be able to get married, no matter what their gender. But I also realize that that's not my function here. I'm here to represent the 110,000 people back home, many of whom had called and e-mailed and said, 'We don't want that bill.'"

If you were an elected official, would you support a bill you considered morally right if it was opposed by a majority (or the vocal majority) of your constituents? What is the elected official's responsibility for the good of their district? What philosophy best represents our form of government? It's a tough call.

Though the choice is one few of us will have to face from that perspective,will you support a candidate who votes her conscience - even if 51% of your neighbors oppose it?

Whatever your opinion, this question will only become more important as the regrettable polarization of our current political climate increases. People are just being forced to shout louder in a political system that is too large, corrupt, and ethically bankrupt to hear their voices.

Until we find the platform and patience to reject vitriolic, long range politics in favor of increased local engagement and advocacy, even local politicians will be forced to make tough calls from their conscience...or else just settle for re-election. And maybe a couple unreported "bonuses" from their campaign account. After all, it's a tough job.