Sooner or later, every one of Virginia’s legislators -- and really all elected representatives everywhere -- may be tempted, even confused, by a very simple, but fundamental, question: Do I vote my conscience, or do I vote what I perceive to be the desires of my constituents?

This is a "false choice" question, but one that rises again and again in elective politics. People who have never held office cannot appreciate the level of angst it sometimes raises. People who have held office, or hold it now, know exactly what I am talking about. They will smile and nod.

Our legislature is conflicted with this issue now in the matter of a state budget. It is so easy to bob and weave and duck with "let the people decide." Sure it sounds good, sometimes noble even. But noble it is not. It is but a pretender to nobility. Acts of conscience have staying power unimaginable to these flighty wisps.

Individual acts of conscience have made, moved and strengthened nations. Where would we be without them? Can you name one where a referendum came anywhere close to having impact such as that? I’m having difficulty doing so.

I don’t want to belabor this point, but where would we be had Lincoln given legitimacy to that referendum held by the southern states? Where would we be had the Supreme Court put some of their landmark Civil Rights decisions to referenda?

There are a few practicalities, too, in this argument for "conscience" -- one in particular.

It is virtually impossible to determine precisely how constituents feel on any given issue. Phone calls don’t do it. Letters don’t do it. Polls don’t do it. Referenda don’t do it -- the only way they would be a certain indicator would be in the event that every citizen was required by law to participate -- which will never be the case. Sure, the desires of the majority of the participants will be discovered, but that’s about as close as you’re going to get.

Well, shouldn’t the majority rule? Isn’t that Democracy? Isn’t that the American way? Of course. But that’s usually not what happens. Typically, the majority may not even participate. Many -- those not registered to vote -- won’t even be allowed to. You see, as good as it is, our system of government is imperfect. Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

Think about it like this: What is the best you can say about a referendum, or an election, for that matter, wherein the turnout is say 60 percent and it goes either way two-to-one? The best you can say is that 40 percent of those eligible to participate have carried the day. Is that majority rule? Forty percent of eligibles? That means 60 percent either didn’t participate or went the other way. Has the majority ruled in this instance? I don’t think so. Have the people spoken? I don’t think so. You see, quite often the case is, in fact, one of minority rule in our system of government.

The point is: Any elected representative who says he or she is doing what their people want them to do begs a touch of skepticism. Those who say, let the people decide by referenda are taking the easy way. They’re taking the false option. They’re not leading. They’re just plain ducking.

Really there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ here, but there can be only one sustaining answer. We must elect individuals who will vote conscience, insist upon them doing so, and -- perhaps most important of all -- give them quarter when they do.

Our refrain, our urge, our insistence must be "do your duty" to the folks -- good ones all -- we’ve sent to represent us. That’s what we’ve elected them to do.