What is the difference between trustee and delegate representation

The delegate model of representation is a model of a representative democracy. In this model, constituents elect their representatives as delegates for their constituency.

Essentially, the representative acts as the voice of those who are literally not present. A trustee model refers to a situation where people in a particular constituency choose their representative in parliament. It is a model of representative. The people entrust the person they choose with the duty of making significant decisions on their behalf. We will write a custom Essay on Trustee vs.

As such, the representative acts as the trustee of the people in all their matters at both the local and national scene. The elected trustee has the duty of deliberating and making decisions for the greater interest of the people while still putting the national interest first Burke, As such, the trustee has the mandate to make decisions on behalf of the people; he can then forego the immediate interest of his constituents in favor of the national interest.

He does this bearing in mind that he is given the trusteeship because the voters believe that they collectively lack the necessary knowledge, which the trustee has. As such, they provide this power to the trustee to do it on their behalf.

On the other hand, the delegate model of representation is understood as parallel to the trustee model of representation. While it gives the trustee all the rights and the powers to make the decisions on behalf of the people, delegation sees the representative as the mouthpiece of the people. He has no right or power to decide on his own volition Burke, Ideally, they spend their time investigating the issues at hand, and analyzing the available options before making decisions that best meet the needs of all interested parties.

Yet, it's not always possible to meet the needs of all constituents, which places a tremendous amount of pressure on the elected official who must speak for a large group of people with sometimes conflicting interests. A dvantages and Limitations of the Delegate Model. T he delegate model provides a way for the people to have a direct voice in government through the people they elect to represent them.

Ideally, they regularly communicate with their delegates. However, this also has the potential to give greater power to the majority, especially if the delegates only hear from a fraction of the people they represent. World View. T rustee Model of Representation I n a trustee model of representation, the people choose a representative they trust to make the best decisions for the constituents. In , the extended debates and legislative maneuvering in Congress over the proposed health care reform bill triggered a firestorm of disapproval from the Republicans and protests from their supporters.

In many cases, hyperbole ruled the day. Nevertheless, the desire to make good on a decades-old political promise compelled Democrats to do everything in their power to pass something. They offered sympathetic members of the Republican Party valuable budgetary concessions; they attempted to include allocations they hoped the opposition might feel compelled to support; and they drafted the bill in a purposely complex manner to avoid future challenges.

These efforts, however, had the opposite effect. The more Democrats dug in, the more frustrated the Republicans became. The Republican opposition, which took control of the House during the midterm elections, promised constituents they would repeal the law.

Their attempts were complicated, however, by the fact that Democrats still held the Senate and the presidency. Yet, the desire to represent the interests of their constituents compelled Republicans to use another tool at their disposal, the symbolic vote. During the th and th Congresses, Republicans voted more than sixty times to either repeal or severely limit the reach of the law.

And if they did, he would certainly have vetoed them. But it was important for these representatives to demonstrate to their constituents that they understood their wishes and were willing to act on them. Historically, representatives have been able to balance their role as members of a national legislative body with their role as representatives of a smaller community.

The Obamacare fight, however, gave a boost to the growing concern that the power structure in Washington divides representatives from the needs of their constituency. Indeed, following the election, a handful of Republicans began living in their offices in Washington, convinced that by not establishing a residence in Washington, they would appear closer to their constituents at home. The concept of collective representation describes the relationship between Congress and the United States as a whole.

That is, it considers whether the institution itself represents the American people, not just whether a particular member of Congress represents his or her district. Predictably, it is far more difficult for Congress to maintain a level of collective representation than it is for individual members of Congress to represent their own constituents. Not only is Congress a mixture of different ideologies, interests, and party affiliations, but the collective constituency of the United States has an even-greater level of diversity.

Nor is it a solution to attempt to match the diversity of opinions and interests in the United States with those in Congress. Indeed, such an attempt would likely make it more difficult for Congress to maintain collective representation. Its rules and procedures require Congress to use flexibility, bargaining, and concessions. Yet, it is this flexibility and these concessions, which many now interpret as corruption, that tend to engender the high public disapproval ratings experienced by Congress.

After many years of deadlocks and bickering on Capitol Hill, the national perception of Congress is near an all-time low. According to Gallup polls, Congress has a stunningly poor approval rating of about 16 percent.

This is unusual even for a body that has rarely enjoyed a high approval rating. For example, for nearly two decades following the Watergate scandal in the early s, the national approval rating of Congress hovered between 30 and 40 percent.

Yet, incumbent reelections have remained largely unaffected. The reason has to do with the remarkable ability of many in the United States to separate their distaste for Congress from their appreciation for their own representative. As decades of polling indicate, few events push congressional approval ratings above 50 percent. Indeed, when the ratings are graphed, the two noticeable peaks are at 57 percent in and 84 percent in War has the power to bring majorities of voters to view their Congress and president in an overwhelmingly positive way.

Figure 5. It has declined fairly steadily ever since, reaching a low of 9 percent in November , just after the federal government shutdown in the previous month.