Independents asked to base their decision on arbitrary metric of the day

A curious feature of our current democratic gridlock is the repeated assertion that the three Independents are obliged to base their decision on some arbitrary metric of the day. Inevitably this metric supports the desired outcome of its proponent.

You’d expect this from the party leaders, who’ve variously embraced the greatest number of seats, of primary votes and of two-party preferred votes as the binding factor, depending on whether it suits their position. Frustratingly for both leaders, these metrics have fluctuated constantly, making them near useless for political point-scoring.

More amusing have been the rationales offered by conservative commentators to explain why the Independents ‘must’ support the Coalition. In today’s Australian, Kenneth Wiltshire argues the trio should back Tony Abbott based on their consciences, the national interest and the wishes of their constituents. On Saturday, Christopher Pearson claimed historians will judge the Independents to have failed Australia if they don’t support the Coalition. In the SMH, Paul Sheehan has twice claimed in recent weeks (here and here ) that the Coalition’s superior vote in the Independents’ own electorates means they cannot support Labor: “These men have been given no mandate whatsoever to form a government with the party their electorates so comprehensively dismissed.”

Fluff, every word. The Independents were elected to use their judgment on the floor of the House, including over whom to support in matters of confidence and supply. They have complete freedom in these judgments and, barring illegal behaviour, are answerable only to their constituents at the next poll. Their constituents elected them because they trusted that judgment. If these electorates had wanted a Coalition government so badly, they would have voted for the Coalition candidates. They didn’t.

In the interest of balance, I’ve tried unsuccessfully to find progressive commentators claiming that the Independents are obliged to back Julia Gillard. Conservatives would argue this is because any such claim is hollow. They’re right – in both directions.