Constitution or Articles of Confederation—which is better?

If you were taken back in time to argue for one of the two documents, and if your vote was the tie-breaker, which document would you support: the Articles of Confederation or the United States Constitution? The framers of the Constitution meant for it to be an upgrade from the Articles of Confederation. However, the anti-federalists disliked the Constitution because they thought it provided the opportunity for a few people to exploit a concentration of power in a federal government. On October 5, 1787, an anti-federalist known as "Centinel" commented on the proposed Constitution after inspecting it. Here is a quote from his comment: “From this investigation into the organization of this government, it appears that it is devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY.” On the other hand, supporters of a federal government asserted that loosely combined states are vulnerable to a more sinister threat—the lost of unity provoked by petty ambitions among separate states and the lack of harmonious action due to a lack of centralized authority. Here is a quote from Federalist No. 10, by Madison. “Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are most favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal . . .”----links to the referenced documents: “Centinel” No. 1 (http://constitution.org/afp/centin01.htm), Federalist No. 10 (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1404/1404-h/1404-h.htm#2H_4_0010)