Who's in Charge

Since the mark of the century, polls have indicated a rapid decline in public faith in elected government officials ("Public Trust in Government: 1958-2010" April 18, 2010). People have begun to doubt the willingness of their Congressmen to lend a helping hand to solve their problems, which then raises the question of who their representatives are truly representing. Are they behaving as trustees, in the sense that they work to put forth their best legislative judgment for their constituents, or as delegates that merely regurgitate the will of their constituents regarding legislative matters? Moreover, of these two models of representation, which provides the best results for voters? The proposal to be discussed in this paper is that though delegacy nearly ensures the constituents get exactly what they want, it is ultimately in the voters' best interests to entrust their legislative matters in one who considers facts as well as opinions; thus, the trustee approach is the better model.

Let us begin by first elaborating on the two models of representation.

As mentioned earlier, a representative who undertakes the trustee model of representation listens to his constituents' ideas, considers the facts and possibilities, formulates his own opinion, and then acts upon it ("Who is the Boss?"). Although the final decision may not necessarily coincide with the majority sentiment, the representative is simply doing what he thinks is best for the people. Because by considering the facts of the situation, the views of his constituents, and his own personal judgment, he is able to make a more qualified decision on behalf of his voters. Furthermore, it is pretty safe to assume that representatives are better versed in the convoluted world of politics as well as more cognizant of key issues than the average voter is; that withstanding, it would seem to otherwise be a disservice to his constituents if their uninformed opinions were presented without a second thought as it may not ultimately be in their best interests. While this fact also seems to alleviate the constituents of the burden of familiarizing themselves with issues and then voicing their thoughts to the representatives, the voters must understand that the trustee approach can easily pave way for miscommunication and extreme differences in ideas. For example, suppose a very conservative, old Caucasian man represents a largely Latino population in Southern California. His views are more than likely extremely, if not diametrically, opposed to those of a young Latina on issues concerning immigration and abortion. Though the representative feels as if he is acting with her best interests in mind, she will feel betrayed in the sense that she expected him to convey her opinions to Congress, not vote against them, and he will face losing re-election (Bloom December 3, 2009). This hypothetical (or not) situation should reside in the back of voters' minds when electing a trustee representative as they should at least be aware of who they are electing into office. Nevertheless, the qualifications, considerations, and latitude of a trustee make him a good choice in representing his people.

The second model--the delegate approach--is most simply described as a Congressional messenger, or even as a "mouthpiece" of the people, if you will. A delegate is a representative who listens to the voices of the constituents and recites their views to Congress even if their views do not coincide with his own (Bloom December 3, 2009). This approach assumes that voters will strive to stay informed on a multitude of issues and take the time to express their concerns to their representatives but does guarantee the most accurate representation of the majority sentiment of the constituency. Going back to the previous example, let us say that the very conservative, old Caucasian man is acting as a delegate in yet another hypothetical (or not) situation. Although his views do not particularly coincide with those of the young Latina, he votes according to her wishes; he does not consider the facts or his own personal judgment,