For the government to run effectively, the will of the people must be considered and respected by those who represent them. The delegate model of representation and the trustee model of representation are two distinct approaches to representation. The delegate model requires representatives to act in favor of those who appointed them; While the trustee model allows representatives to use their own judgments to make decisions. We see very different outcomes in decision-making and political interests between the models. In this essay, I will compare and contrast the two models and argue that both models are effective when used in different sectors of government, as they strengthen the foundations of democracy. In the delegate model of representation, …show more content…
This highlights the idea that true representation involves deliberation and a commitment to the overall wellbeing of the nation. Comparing the delegate model to the trustee model reflects the variations of representative democracy. The differences in the models reveal a significant contrast in the way representatives carry out their roles and responsibilities. The delegate model of representation incorporates elements of a direct democracy, where representatives are voted in by the constituents and are held accountable for their decisions. The constitutes also have the ability to recall them once they have failed to follow orders. On the other hand, the trustee model of representation allows those elected to use their own discretion and expertise in making decisions in the best interest of the nation as a whole. Representatives are not bound by the instructions of their electors and ultimately serve longer …show more content…
Burke stated, “Parliament is a deliberative Assembly of one Nation, with one Interest, that of the whole” meaning he sought representation on a national level (Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 4.1.25). It is with his beliefs in the trustee model that representatives work together to unite the nation and make just rulings fair to everyone, not just one group, city, or state. I feel like these principles align closely with those of the U.S. Senate. Senators serve six-year terms, which can provide stability in decision making, rather than incorporating fluctuations in public opinion. These members would be more suited to the expertise that Burke highlights a representative needs in order to be effective. For example, the Senate deals with foreign policies and regulations between our country and others. A senator must be knowledgeable enough to conduct and participate in these discussions. It would be greatly irresponsible and a waste of time to hear or receive opinions and votes from the common citizen on foreign
For weeks convention delegates have been argued over representation in congress, Large States want it based on population. Small states want each states to have the same number of votes. representative s shall be apportioned according to population. The number of shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representatives. This piece of evidence relates to the argument because they said that big states has more power than small states that is why big states only need one representative.
Powers are not directly given to the people, but instead of those they elect to run the government. Therefore, a proposition should be made to where the people have a voice. There shall be a fusion between direct and representative democracy in both federal government and the states. Having more of a direct democracy will make it to where the people bring up any current issues that they want solved. Often, those who represent the states are bought out by elites so they can benefit for themselves through the legislation that they make. By having a direct democracy the people will have the power to be able to bring issues that they want and will therefore, be solved by those who represent them. This also solves the issue
In contrast, the representative government indicates where the people can freely vote for representatives exercising governmental powers on behalf of the people’s interests. Dawson J also stated that representative government needs people to elect freely their representative as a minimum requirement. In recent judgments in Australia, the two concepts are interchangeable. However, the notion of representative democracy seems a bit broader than the notion of representative government.
The delegates, also known as the Framers of the Constitution, didn't exactly agree on how to create a new system of government, with two sides emerging both with contrary, but comparable motives on how to keep their country running efficiently. First there were the Federalists, who favored a stronger national g...
The three theories of representation in Congress are: delegate, trustee, and politico. First is the delegate model of representation is the philosophy that legislators should represent the preferences of their constituents. Next is the trustee model of representation is the philosophy that legislator should consider the will of the people but act in ways they perceive best for the long term interest of the nation. Finally, is the politico model of representation it is a mixture of the two, it is delegate on which constituents have intense views, and trustee on issues that are important for national interests.
It can be argued that event without the “hereditary orders,” a distinction of interests can be found and were discussed in several papers. Interests will vary from state to state, from the rural farmers to the businessmen of the cities. These distinctions were discussed in Federalist No. 10 as factions. While the hierarchy of such interests is not related to nobility as found in England, a faction is defined here as a number of citizens who are united and motivated by common interests adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the interests of the community. It is proposed that there are only two methods of curing the adverse effects of factions: by removing its causes or by controlling its effects. The intent of the proposed system of checks and balances seeks to cure selfish interest by the latter. Power to any one person or branch would be limited by the other branches, preventing any person, branch, or faction from gaining an excess amount of power and leverage towards their own interests rather than the collective interests of the people.
Representation: the effort of elected officials to look out for the interests of those who elect them
While working in the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate hold different requirements their main purpose is to work together to form what is known as the United States Congress. Together they work to regulate laws and to form new ones when necessary. They are in place to keep the powers separate and to make sure that the power never lies with one group. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate play a very important role in the way the government
The United States of America is often touted as the guiding beacon of democracy for the entirety of the modern world. In spite of this tremendous responsibility the political system of the United States retains some aspects which upon examination appear to be significantly undemocratic. Perhaps the most perplexing and oft misunderstood of these establishments is the process of electing the president and the institution known as the Electoral College. The puzzle of the Electoral College presents the American people with a unique conundrum as the mark of any true democracy is the citizens’ ability to elect their own ruling officials. Unfortunately, the Electoral College system dilutes this essential capacity by introducing an election by
...of two evils’ (Brennan, 2009, 537) or the ‘greater of two goods’. Therefore, it seems that Guerrero (2010) must concede his point that officials should use MNM to determine the capacity in which they should govern. However, I believe that the MNM can be used to discriminate between the trustee role and the delegate role in a multiple vote or ranking system, as these systems would likely give a fairly accurate picture of the exact support and consent given by the governed because it allows citizens to express support for everyone that they would consent to be governed by.
When the Framers were drafting the presidential selection procedure of the Constitution in 1787, they presented an artful compromise to the issue of direct election. With the new country spanning thousands of miles along the Atlantic coast and barely connected by transportation or communication, it was impractical if not impossible to distribute information widely enough for every citizen to make an informed choice (Kimberling). In a direct election, this lack of knowledge about candidates living in other states would inevitably result in citizens voting for the candidate they knew the most about. Because the larger states have considerable more voters, presidents would be elected not for their political beliefs, but for their place of residence. Given the inability to spread information extensively, the Framers compromised by adopting the idea of representation. The people up and down the country would vote for local delegates with whom they were familiar with. These electors would then elect a president “pre-eminent for ability and virtue” (Hamilton 333). By devising the Electoral College, the Framers ensured th...
In a democratic government, functions of representation can sometimes become skewed or misunderstood. I will examine the different institutions of government, including the legislature, the executive, the bureaucracy, and the courts, pointing to their differences in trustee vs. delegate functions of representation. My understanding of a trustee is that it is someone in a position of power deciding what is best without a direct mandate. In other words, someone who is carrying out the wishes of the constituents when feasible, as well as acting motivated by what he or she feels or thinks is in the best interest of the community as a whole. A delegate function, on the other hand, is one that mandates representation of the constituency.
The single-member district election system is the most common and best-known electoral system currently in use in America. It is used to elect the U.S. House Representatives, as well as many state and local legislatures. Under single member district systems, an area is divided into a number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their district’s representative, with the individual receiving the most votes winning election. This method of electing representatives is better than any alternative solution in various ways. Four compelling reasons to support the single-member district election system include the fact that single-member districts give each voter a single, easily identifiable district member; the way single-member district voting helps protect against overreaching party influence; that single-member districts ensure geographic representation; and finally, that single-member districts are the best way to maximize representatives’ accountability.
It was John Adams who noted that "men in general, in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also little too acquainted with public affairs for a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own."1 This shared attitude guided the Founding Fathers in their establishment of what has become America's modern day political system. When today's modern day student is asked just what sort of system that was, it seems the answer is always "democracy." In reality, the House of Representatives is the nearest idea in accordance with a system of democracy that this country would ever reach.2 Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were the wealth and success of their time, and coincidentally, it was these same men that fashioned a structure in which wealth and success were the ultimate judges of where power was to fall. The Founding Fathers did not seek democratic reform, but rather sought personal gain in the form of ultimate power.
More specific arguments originate from the participatory theory of democracy and the critique of a lack of responsiveness and legitimacy of representative (party) democracy. The two sets of democratic institutions are distinguished by basic features of direct participation: (1) direct democracy focuses on specific issues, in contrast to voting on candidates and general programs for long terms of office, and (2) citizens themselves act as decision makers rather than delegating these powers. Like electoral systems, a variety of procedural forms, designs, and regulations are likely to influence processes and outcome. One must also keep in mind that direct-democratic processes cannot operate in isolation but are always linked to the structures of an overall political system that includes major representative institutions. Thus, interactions between the two types of institutions will be an important challenge for analysis. For instance, as George Tsebelis notes, referendum voters can be seen as an additional veto player. Some authors contend that direct democracy may undermine representative democracy, while others focus on the deliberative functions for a democratic public sphere and the capacity for integrating citizens in the democratic process. One can also assume that basic