Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress.

Response to Con 1) Error with Surveys Certain properties and attitutdes of the population can be estimated by a survey method. Its not feasible to get everyone physically in a room to vote on all issues. The survey is less of a sample and more akin to an online voting system. Instead of voting on politicians, people vote on issues they support (or not) and the politician carries those ideas forth. The error resides in not having a representative sample of the population fill out the survey. This error can be mitigated by making the survey mandatory like the census, or raising public awareness. However, I want to stress that in a population of 1,000 people, one can survey a small fraction of the population and still get reliable results. http://en.wikipedia.org...(statistics) 1a) Vote in Election vs Filling Out Survey Voter turnout rates for 2010 were estimated to be roughly 60% for the 2008 presidential election. Many other election turn out rates are far lower. Although we have a democratic process for elections, not everyone exercises their right to vote. Further, election do not gather the opinion of everyone who votes. A fraction of the population gets "fit" into a political platform. There are only 2 major parties in the U.S. If the candidates from the two parties both want to keep a ban on certain energy drinks, there is no way to tell what the population at large wants. Perhaps the population wants to lift the ban. A scientific poll can achieve a higher level of accuracy in measuring the population's opinion at large. Polls can make a representative democracy more democratic. Fact Check http://www.factcheck.org... 1b) Coverage Bias and Exclusion Phone surveys are not optimal. Online surveys work better. Everyone theoretically has access to the internet through home, work, public libraries, phones or even electronic stores that sell computers. Its a question of literacy more so than access to technology. 1c) The Shy Elephant Factor No elephants must be shy. The surveys can be completed online. Your survey results and answers are not published, the answers are anonymous to others. We are not debating an exit poll. The shy elephant is a strawman argument. Its a misrepresentation of my position. 2) Surveys are Efficient Surveys and opinion polls are used in many cases to form policy and guide politicians. Elections are nothing but surveys of the general population as not everybody votes. Its ironic that Con refers to an ITU survey "as of June 2010, 77.3% of the US population has access to, and uses, the internet" to make a case against surveys. Clearly ITU did not speak to everyone in the country, I never heard from them! Everyone has access to the internet and can be polled, but everyone must not be polled in order for the survey to accurately reflect public opinion. The effectiveness of online surveys should be left for another debate. 3) Not a Direct Democracy In cases where surveys can be used, they should be used. The government must have the consent of the governed. 4) Surveys Would Enhance the Right to Petition A survey enhances the Right to Petition for everyone that fills it out. Citizens get to express their opinions through polls and those polls are actually meaningful if the politician is obligated to carry them out. Its a real time right to petition, with action that back up the results. I think Pro is confusing the right to gather signatures for a petition with the right to assemble and to protest. Wisconsin was a case of protesting and assembling at the capital building, not signing a formal petition to present to Governor Walker. Summary: Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress. The techonology is in place and the mathematics behind surveys is well tested, frequently used and sound. There is no reason to exclude the voice of the people in the process when applicable. The US should ensure that we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people.