In general it would be immoral to vote against the wishes of your polity. We know that politicians have to make tough decisions all the time, and often have to form coalitions, or make deals in order to get things done. So the occassional vote against the polity is expected.

But are their cases where a politician without any other political objective, can morally govern against the wishes of his constituents?

- when the professed and popular wishes are against the polity's better interest.

I can think of some hypothetical instances such as voting against the location of a military installation in one's own district. In addition to getting an Army Base, the Senator might know that a top secret chemical and bioweapon storage facility would be located in his district. Perhaps we could be talking about a nuclear facility. Because of their top secret nature the politician would not be at liberty to divulge the fact that there are potential hazards at a facility, but he would be morally right to vote against it. It's like a parent not letting a child have a pellet gun despite lucid arguments from the child.

A Senator ,who is less vulnerable to popular whims, might have to make a career of those tough choices. And you also run into the problem of whose morality is more moral. Ultimately that is what it comes down to, but it can't be solved neatly on paper. And Americans love elegant solutions.

But going back to the idea of a stealth candidate, I do not think it would be moral. I doubt that any one could justify it.

peace,
k. orr