Direct representation should be adopt for legislatures

After reflecting upon the last argument, I believe I found a key piece of information in need of highlighting: Voters not only want Representative which reflect Their views/interests but which succeed in making government work. This point will become increasingly important to remember going forward.While I understand and appreciate the concern regarding more popular Representatives citing more votes, this characteristic is a deliberate feature and not a problem because the more popular Representative is, by the design of the system, representing a larger segment of the populace. In other words, more People have chosen this particular Individual to represent Them and Their interests in the legislature and, if We want the legislature to accurate reflect the People and Their interests, such an imbalance between People with positions of varying popularity is both expected and desired. To do otherwise is to deny the People Their preferred choice of representation.Currently, the Winner-take-all system causes certain Voters and Their interests to be completely shut out of the legislative process unless They can muster close to a majority of a legislative district. Even then, the choice of the minority Voters is denied in every district, giving said Voters zero voice in the legislature or only a voice when politically convenient for the Incumbent. Meanwhile, with a direct representation system, Every Voter will have Their preferred choice of Representative in the legislature with a degree of legislative influence proportionate to the popularity of said Voter’s views/interests.No Representative will be “discriminated against”. Some Representatives simply will not have been chosen by the People to represent Them. However, Every Representative will have the same proportion of influence with respect to Voter support: If a Representative has been chosen by twice as many Voters to represent Them, that Representative will have twice as much influence and should because They represent twice as many Voters.The assertion, “In Congress, all delegates should be treated equally,” ignores the fact Representatives are treated equally under this system: Everyone receives as much influence as the Voters give Them; no more; no less.The concern about policy skewing “towards the already popular” is a curious one, especially in light of the assertion, “Democracy is about representation of all, majority and minority alike”, as if the two concepts were mutually exclusive. The Oxford English Dictionary includes amongst its definitions of “democracy”, “control of an organization or group by the majority of its members”, a definition I suggest is the commonly held one. While good governance might require a balancing of majority and minority interests, no conflict exists between democracy and when “policy becomes skewed towards the already popular”. Perhaps the concern is the 50%+1 will run roughshod over the 50%-1? In that case a system of constitutional limitations on the actions of the legislature alleviates such concerns just as it does in the United States now. At the same time, this unease about “skewing” and popularity ignores the fact the Winner-take-all system already skews policy “towards the already popular”: Candidates campaign on policies X, Y, and Z, and, upon taking office, are expected to deliver; the only way They can take office is if Their proposals are popular or the proposals of Their Opponents are sufficiently unpopular.Likewise, one party occasionally wins multiple districts by a little while losing fewer districts by a lot, resulting a majority party without majority support. Direct representation prevents that scenario.Representatives in this system will certainly value the support of Other and be willing to compromise because no Representative will have sufficient popularity to pass legislation alone unless the Representative is just that good as to be an outstanding Servant of the People. In the United States, at the federal level, such a situation is also impossible because Representatives must be Residents of the state They represent. Therefore, Representatives will need to form coalitions and cooperate with Others, including Representatives with less influence, in order to achieve the goals the Voters want Them to achieve. Yet, even if a Representative could do so, why should the People having Their choice of Representative be undesirable?The “majority-minority compromise” objection ignores the current system’s tendency for legislatures to often passing bills which the minority claims are “contrary to the will of the People”. As alluded to above, the inherent limitations of influence incentivize compromise and reciprocity because the more influential Representative is certainly going to need the assistance of less influential Representatives later.Likewise, sufficiently small enough minorities are completely excluded from the current system and direct representation will give these minorities some say in legislation instead of the zero say possessed now.The concern about a polarized congress suggests a forgetfulness with respect to the recent debt ceiling standoffs, the government shutdown, the hyperbolic rhetoric with respect to the health reform bill, to whether the cause of the increase in the federal government’s debt is from taxes being too low or spending being too high, to whether certain legislation will either put guns into the hands of Every Criminal or enable the government to confiscate all firearms everywhere. Yet, even absent such, the concerns are unwarranted because elections will become much more low key and much less vitriolic; Everyone will have Their Representative; in the most cynical scenario, the Representatives will be focused on amassing legislative influence; the only way to do so under direct representation is to show Voters You can meet Their needs, thereby picking up more influence slowly over time, resulting in less jarring election results; as a result, a less combative and more constructive atmosphere will exist in the legislature, reducing polarization.The last paragraph of point 2 elides the difference between “less support” and “zero support”. To Someone in a political minority, this difference is not negligible and may be the only way to have One’s interests addressed.Regarding point 3, as I have noted, the incentives to compromise will actually be enhanced, not diminished, because Voters do not choose Representatives only for the purpose of voicing Their views but also for the purpose of achieving certain goals and, if those goals are not met by the current Representative when an Alternate seems capable of meeting them, the Voters will draw support from the original Representative and add it to the Alternate; since only a rare set of Individuals in political office like to see Their influence decline, Representatives will place greater emphasis on cooperation and less on polarization.Different interest groups already “ask of different things to be done” and gridlock still occurs. However, unlike the current system, where Representatives need only achieve a plurality/majority to stay in office and keep Alternatives out, direct Representatives will risk losing influence to said Alternatives with the guarantee said Alternatives will now be in office, even if only slight influence to begin with. Smart Representatives will then do whatever They can to broker deals between the interest groups and avoid gridlock, lest the Voters chip away at said Representatives’ influence. This incentive is independent of “region to region” variations and/or similarities: if a direct Representative wants to retain influence in the legislature, They will want to cooperate and compromise.Therefore, direct representation leads to less polarization.The allegations, “It is impossible … to make everybody happy,” and “that is essentially what direct representation is trying to acheive[sic],” suggest frustration and mischaracterize the proposal. While just because something is deemed “impossible” does not mean We should not try to get as close to it as possible, nothing in the proposal I put forth even suggests an attempt to “make everybody happy”. At no point did I make this claim. While I do say direct representation would allow for Everyone’s voice to be heard in the legislature and to have Their interests represented by the Person of Their choice, such does not mean I claim the proposal will “make everybody happy”.The claims about where decisions should “deviate” have no basis in any political theory literature I have ever read. Nor does such “deviation” automatically translate into “policy … operating in a way that is sustainable for all”. In fact, this particular statement can be disproved with a thought experiment: suppose the political median says, “Everyone on one particular side of the political median should be murdered”; soon that median moves along the spectrum to result in almost continuous mass murder. Consistent application of this principle is, therefore, faulty. Likewise, a repetition of flawed claims, without showing how the perceived flaws do not exist, is not compelling.The very idea of having the Voters compromise defeats one purpose of having Representatives in the first place: Voters choose Representatives to represent Their interests and for the Representatives to compromise in such a way the government functions while protecting said interests as much as possible. Under direct representation, if the Representatives do not meet both of these goals, Voters will readily and easily change the balance of power in a smooth and orderly fashion at election time, as They should be allowed.