Trustees definitely. A group of trustees that represent their own individual case can make a collaborative decision that compromises everything better than what the delegates would.

History has shown that good monarchs (eg, Louis XIV) may not always act in the vote of their peoples, but they act for the best of the community which is by far better.

I believe the saying goes, "A person is smart, but people are dumb. (credit to Men in Black--excited for MIB III, releasing in summer 2012 :D )" or something along those lines. Well, this cliché is correct because the people may not see the broader scheme of things and act in the moment. For example, let's use Contagion as an example of no-government intervention until later. People were on the loose trying to avoid the disease, robbing banks, stores, houses, etc; people were buying fraudulent forsythia as a blogger commited fraud with online shopping. This is likely the natural course of action when government is involved, but if government is involved and establishes a cure and can execute a series of vaccinations for every person systematically, this will prevent chaos.

Obviously, being the delegate in that case will result in total mayhem.

Yeah, trustees, as long as we choose the trustees.

What I really prefer is a slight mix. For example, there's nothing wrong with what just happened on SOPA, where it took the outrage of millions of people to finally get the dotering trustees' attention that there might be a problem with what they were doing.

Yeah, but the trustees weren't really being trustees when they were going to shut down Wikipedia and Google...

I love how people favor trustees except when they make a decision they disagree with.

Once our Future Robot Overlords take over, this will be a mute question. They will rule with cold, calculating logic and will have exactly what they need to serve their masters.

Putin, isn't the whole Idea of Communist government in the short term a trusteeship that serves the good of the people until a true peoples government can be set up. Interesting that you would be the one that points out the problems here (not an attack, just saying)

The false assumption here is that a trustee (a representative, oligarch, or a monarch what have you) can better determine the well being of the community than the community it self. It also discounts that these trustees would not have their own inherent biases and agendas. If the question is whether our reps should serve as delegates or trustees, the answer is a mix of both.

Did the founding fathers really want us to decide completely by ourselves, no, when we adopted the constitution senators were appointed by state legislators and, as we all know, we still do not even directly elect the president.

No, the founding fathers were deathly afraid of the masses who they saw as corruptible. Anybody who worked for a living was seen as corruptible or biased and therefore unable to make informed decisions for the country. Instead they graciously offered themselves as an alternative, men who were seen as incorruptible patricians who were above the influence of money because they were already rich or were supported by legions of slaves.

We have moved on.

"we still do not even directly elect the president."

Yes we do. All but a handful of states have laws which mandate that electors follow the vote of the population in the state. Anyway who cares what a bunch of slaveowning planters and bankers thought about what government should be like? They're dead.

", isn't the whole Idea of Communist government in the short term a trusteeship that serves the good of the people until a true peoples government can be set up."

No. Quite the contrary. There were representative councils at all levels of social life, including the workplace, to hear complaints directly from the people and to represent their interests. There were All-Womens Congresses, minority congresses, and occupational congresses in order to represent these groups views on various matters. It was all about hearing and responding to complaints.

Notice how that's all in past tense? All attempts at communism have been failures.

As for delegates or trustees, it's impossible to be entirely one or the other. A balance must be struck, and if anyone really knew how to do that perfectly there would actually be a place (somewhere) that had a perfect government.

"All attempts at communism have been failures."

Which is why Cuba discovered a lung cancer vaccine despite being blockaded and rah rah America has more money than god while having a third world system of maternity care for birthing mothers.

That's a sad characterization of the founding, SC, one which displays little nuance or interest in reading the times.
The fact is, it was an abnormally liberal Constitution in terms of suffrage, and it got much more liberal very fast (as voting qualifications were left up to state legislatures, which were then rapidly extending suffrage).
Moreover, the founders hardly saw themselves as above corruption. Actually, they little trusted each other, even at the convention, and there is little more ubiquitous in founding-era writings than the realization that ALL men are corruptible. Their idea was to give up as lost the hope of finding incorruptible men, and to set all the different special interests at each other from the first in the hopes of striking balance. See e.g. the famous Federalist #10.

"Which is why Cuba discovered a lung cancer vaccine despite being blockaded and rah rah America has more money than god while having a third world system of maternity care for birthing mothers. "

lol..... wow. Could there be a more out-of-left field, unsystematic response to such a broad claim?

"Nixon was a corrupt scoundrel."

"Oh yeah? Well.... well.... he was an eagle scout, and besides, he opened up China!"

NOTE: I don't know if Nixon was actually an Eagle scout.

The Constitutional convention was a secretive, anti-democratic and illegal putsch which completely overthrew the existing government. All for what? To make it easier to collect debts. Didn't want no Shays rebellion and foreclosure relief. Stop worshiping these people.

"lol..... wow. Could there be a more out-of-left field, unsystematic response to such a broad claim?"

Didn't you bother to read? He claims all socialist countries are/were failures. I pointed out that Cuba is a world leader in healthcare research. How is that a failure? Go away.

BTW, Shays rebellion and oppressive loan conditions of Massachusetts in the 1780s is a prime example of why goldbugs are out of their mind and would destroy us all if we went back to that system.

I'm not worshipping anybody, putin, just asking for honest descriptions. Good grief, is that so objectionable? I often get the impression from you that you have only two views of anything -- awesome, or evil. If anybody defends something, he thinks it's awesome. If he says anything bad about it, he thinks it's evil. There is no such thing as nuance or shades of gray.

So, let's take up your points:

*Secretive

Yes, this is true. I didn't deny it.

*anti-democratic

Not really. Whether to ratify the constitution was left up to an unprecedentedly popular process. You might say, well, the people AT the convention weren't elected. And that's true, but since it didn't go into effect unless it was ratified, the point is not that important. And you have to realize too that it's not like there was any hope of having a convention elected. The forces opposing a federal/national government were powerful enough that no such thing could have happened.

So, writing the thing had to be somewhat clandestine, but ratifying it was as unclandestine as could be, and as popular as anything had been perhaps ever, and certainly in a long long time.

*illegal

Eh, kind of. That's a gray area. One thing for sure is that nobody delegated them the power to say that their document was going to go into effect if 9 states agreed to it. But again, once 9 states do in fact call conventions and agree to it, then they're kind of authorizing that post facto.

*completely overthrew the existing government.

Duh.

*To make it easier to collect debts.

This is the kind of lack of nuance you expect from a Communist. Certainly debt collection was one of the biggest concerns of the people behind the Constitution -- but that was in a much broader context. They realized (or anyway believed) that if America's credit and national defense were allowed to collapse, the colonies would be thirteen struggling, independent colonies that would be easily picked off by European powers. I think they made the case pretty compellingly.

*Didn't want no Shays rebellion and foreclosure relief.

Well, they certainly didn't want no Shays rebellion. Foreclosure relief, as you term it (really, allocation of war debt repayments), was to remain controversial even among those who would go on to run the government. Certainly Hamilton -- one of the least influential people at the Constitutional convention in practice, by the way -- took the position you suggest, and ended up winning the day as Treasury Secretary, by compromising on the location of the capital among other things.
I personally think he was a genius and among the people most single-handedly responsible for the long-term survival of the US, but that's for another day.

"Didn't you bother to read? He claims all socialist countries are/were failures. I pointed out that Cuba is a world leader in healthcare research. How is that a failure? Go away."

Because I don't think anybody views 'healthcare research' as a particularly good metric by which to judge a country. The former USSR was a leader in chess, figure skating, weapons research, aeronautical research, mathematics, physics, and hundred things more, but few people consider it was a success as a country. (You're doubtless an exception).

That's why it was a silly argument.

Let me break it down more simply: there are a lot more people coming to Florida from Cuba on makeshift rafts than going the other way, no matter how great their health care system.

"That's a sad characterization of the founding, SC, one which displays little nuance or interest in reading the times.
The fact is, it was an abnormally liberal Constitution in terms of suffrage, and it got much more liberal very fast (as voting qualifications were left up to state legislatures, which were then rapidly extending suffrage).
Moreover, the founders hardly saw themselves as above corruption. Actually, they little trusted each other, even at the convention, and there is little more ubiquitous in founding-era writings than the realization that ALL men are corruptible. Their idea was to give up as lost the hope of finding incorruptible men, and to set all the different special interests at each other from the first in the hopes of striking balance. See e.g. the famous Federalist #10. "

How is it sad. This is what the Founders believed! They wrote this shit! This is directly from the minds of Jefferson and even the self made man Franklin. The only interpretation I made was that we have moved on, everything else is directly from the writing of the founders themselves. It is only a sad representation because you do not understand the founders political thought and view it through a lens of modern democracy. Democracy was an ugly, ugly word for the founders of our country.

"Moreover, the founders hardly saw themselves as above corruption. Actually, they little trusted each other, even at the convention, and there is little more ubiquitous in founding-era writings than the realization that ALL men are corruptible. Their idea was to give up as lost the hope of finding incorruptible men, and to set all the different special interests at each other from the first in the hopes of striking balance. See e.g. the famous Federalist #10. "

The famous Federalist 10 was discussing FACTIONS. It was significant because it turned out that factions later formed and Federalist 10 assured the country that factions weren't antithetical to the founders original beliefs. In fact, the founders originally felt that the governing class were above factions and that non-partisan government would be a reality even as they were setting up proto-parties. They felt that they as rich slaveholders/ merchants/ Tavern owners etc. were above the interests that inherently corrupted shopkeepers/ artisans/ journeymen etc.

Why do you think the franchise was so limited in the early days? Why do you think, with one one term exception, the first 4 presidents of our country were slave holding Virginians?

And what metric do you think is successful? Cuba has survived as a country with the highest living standards in its region while being under a suffocating blockade for all of its existence as a socialist country. Cuba produces more doctors per capita than any other country, despite having difficulties acquiring medical equipment due to the blockade. That's success by any metric. And yes, the Soviet Union was a success. It was destroyed from within by someone who wanted it destroyed. But I'm sure that fact is irrelevant to you, Mr. Nuance.

and btw, Federalist 10 was not talking about "special interests" it was discussing potential rivalries among sections of the country because it was felt that amoung such enlightened patricians no true parties woul take route. It wasn't until Jackson and Van Buren that a President actually admitted that he he was not above a party.

"Let me break it down more simply: there are a lot more people coming to Florida from Cuba on makeshift rafts than going the other way, no matter how great their health care system."

Not anymore, because the US stopped trying to promote illegal immigration and stopped bribing Cubans to come here with all sorts of goodies like automatic citizenship, an automatic social security guard, and help paying for living expenses, not to mention automatic jobs thanks to the Cuban mafia. Lots of people flock to Cuba for medical tourism and education. American students go to Cuba to become doctors. But yeah, your "argument" is simple, if wrong, I'll give you that, Mr. Nuance.

Only you would think something like Operation Pedro Pan was an example of Cubans being eager to come to the United States.

*card, not guard

And finally semck, the constitution is not liberal at all in regards to suffrage, it leaves suffrage completely up to the states. Some states were extremely liberal with that power, others were not.

@SC, Yes, they weren't big fans of Democracy, indeed because they viewed people as easily swayed, but where you're wrong is that they viewed their own "privileged class" as above it all. You mention Franklin. What about Hamilton? Two of the primary founders arose from poverty and obscurity. But oh, I'm sure they were complete aristocrats too, right?

It's you who are using the wrong lens. It's absurd to judge the suffrage by where it ended up. The fact is, far more people were allowed to vote in 1787 than in any other country in the world, and the uniform and FAST trend thereafter was to extend it to ever more people. The founders did not oppose this trend.

Why were so many Presidents Virginians? Among other things, because of the 3/5 compromise. The north should of course have held the line there and not allowed slaves to be counted for allocating votes. It is one of the tragedies of the United States that they did not, one which had a devastating impact on our history. If you're going to criticize something, criticize that.

Since you insist that they "wrote this shit," I'd love to see a quotation expressing their belief that the rich were inherently above faction and innately better suited to be objective and above it all.

@Putin, the choice of metric is of course going to be controversial. It's easier to eliminate metrics than to choose one, and yours was clearly completely random, irrelevant, and chosen specifically for its pro-Cuban outcome. However, any such metric would at least have to capture the satisfaction of the people themselves with life there. Any country whose people are constantly trying to leave (and not being allowed to) is likely to score low on any metric I would approve of.

@SC, yes, but that IS liberal, particularly since it was framed at a time of liberalizing state suffrage. If they had wanted to exclude as you suggest, they would have written in such things or at least left it up to the Congress.

"What about Hamilton?"

Hamilton was the worst of them all. He wanted a hereditary branch of the government for christ sakes.

"It's you who are using the wrong lens. It's absurd to judge the suffrage by where it ended up. The fact is, far more people were allowed to vote in 1787 than in any other country in the world, and the uniform and FAST trend thereafter was to extend it to ever more people. The founders did not oppose this trend."

Again this was left up to the states, and in many states you are completely WRONG in saying the franchise expanded. In fact in some states it contracted. In New Jersey the vote was given too and snatched away from women.

"
Why were so many Presidents Virginians? Among other things, because of the 3/5 compromise. The north should of course have held the line there and not allowed slaves to be counted for allocating votes. It is one of the tragedies of the United States that they did not, one which had a devastating impact on our history. If you're going to criticize something, criticize that."

Except that the Republican majorities were carried by Middle Atlantic states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey...

"Since you insist that they "wrote this shit," I'd love to see a quotation expressing their belief that the rich were inherently above faction and innately better suited to be objective and above it all."

Indeed give me ten minutes, I don't have my books here I'll have to do it online

"o ratify the constitution was left up to an unprecedentedly popular process. You might say, well, the people AT the convention weren't elected. And that's true, but since it didn't go into effect unless it was ratified, the point is not that important. And you have to realize too that it's not like there was any hope of having a convention elected."

So a bunch of very rich men took part in a secretive convention without any authorization or election but it's still inappropriate to call it anti-democratic because an arbitrary number of state *conventions*. How is it "unprecedently democratic" when the previous constitution, the articles, required every state to ratify changes while the new constitution only required the arbitrary 9 to ratify? In the case of Pennsylvania, outright force was used to force a quorum in order to approve a ratifying convention, how is that 'democratic'? And they didn't have the existing Congress approve it. This institution was simply ignored. The people didn't vote on it. In some cases they didn't even get to elect the delegates to the ratifying conventions, and in the cases where they did few actually voted. Furthermore, something bizarre had to happen for New York, which sent an overwhelming majority (46 to 19) of anti-Federalists to the state ratifying convention, to somehow approve the document.

And you say it's a "gray area" but they clearly operated outside the bounds of the existing law. There's no gray area, it was illegal. It was a counterrevolution. They were given instructions to produce amendments and they came up with a whole new document without any authorization. You say "duh" to the claim that it overthrew the government. Yeah, which means it was illegal.