Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress.

I once again thank SenorSwanky for his responses, as well as for giving the opportunity to debate such an interesting topic.Response to Pro1) Error with SurveysIn this section Pro does a bit of a turnaround on the methodology of his resolution. Throughout this debate he's insisted that the surveys would be a representative random sample, but now he changes his answer and says that they aren't a sample anymore. This lack of continuity in his argument shows the flimsiness of the resolution.1a)Pro says that voter turnout rates are low. I'm not sure whether he is implying that because the turnout is low, not many people's wills are expressed. If that statement is implying such an argument, I would have to, rather bluntly reply by saying that it's the non-voter's fault that their opinion wasn't tossed in with the vote. There are enough ways for a person's vote to be cast, including absentee ballots in case a person cannot be present at a vote, so that point, if it was there, is moot.He then goes on to an example which is completely absurd. Pro gives us an example that, what if both the Republican and Democratic candidates for the legislature want to ban energy drinks, but the majority of the population says otherwise? The answer to that is clearly that this would not happen. If the majority of the population believes energy drinks should not be banned, then there would be at least one candidate that does not want to ban drinks that would make it through the primaries. Of course, there is the chance that the majority may not vote in the primaries before the election, but, as I said before, it would be the voter's responsibility to vote. The argument remains.1b)Here, Pro concedes to me that phone surveys are not optimal, and that internet surveys would be used. He then says that everyone theoretically has access to internet somehow. The problem with this statement is plain--while it is true that theoretically everyone has internet access, practically, many people do not, especially in rural areas. So, my statement still somewhat is true.1c)In this section, it is stated by Pro that we are not debating exit polls, all answers are anonymous to others, and that my argument is a strawman. What I find interesting about Pro's rebuttal is that it is actually a strawman in and of itself. My quote about the Shy Elephant Factor stated that conservatives are less likely "to participate in exit polls or other types of opinion polls over liberals," [1]. Clearly, my argument did still apply to surveys of the variety Pro is arguing for, and thus, the point still stands.2) "Surveys are Efficient"While it is true that polls are used quite a bit in making decisions about public policy, the difference is that they do not dictate public policy, they merely weigh in on it. I find it strange that Pro tries to make a case against my source by saying that it didn't poll everybody. Now, clearly this is not a debate about our sources, and although this seems like a non-sequitor, I feel that I must say that ITU most likely polled internet providers, not every single person that may/may not have internet. But I digress.Then, Pro once again delivers the falsehood that everyone has access to the internet. Then after this, Pro states that not everyone needs to be polled to have an accurate survey. While this is true, what he's saying is another strawman. My argument was not that everyone must be polled, but that everyone must be able to be polled to have an accurate survey, so that it's possible for all demographics to be represented.3) "Not a Direct Democracy"Indeed I agree the government must have the consent of the governed, however there are already systems in place for this. This includes elections and all First Amendment rights granted by the Constitution. The survey system has simply too much room for error to be implemented.4) "Surveys Would Enhance the Right to Petition"Here, Pro says that the right to petition is enhanced for everyone that fills it out. The problem is though, as I said in the previous round, that the right to petition is not only enhanced for the people that fill out the surveys, but it's only enhanced for those who get to fill it out. The thousands of others' rights to petition aren't being enhanced!I think that SenorSwanky misunderstands my argument. My argument is that, because the system is flawed, less people's opinions would be heard,and therefore, more incidents like the Wisconsin protests may arise wn a large portion of people's opinions aren't represented. Again, I'm not indicating that the protests were bad--it was actually a perfect example of our rights being excersised. What I was indicating though, is that there were many negative consequences of the protests. Ergo, many more negative consequences from other protests due to this faulty system could (and more than likely would) happen, and that is something that I believe we an all agree is undesirable.ConclusionI have proved that Pro's survey system is faulty at best, and I'd even go so far as to say that it's truly a broken system at worst. This system of his excludes demographics from being able to give their opinion fairly in a poll which would not just influence public policy making, but control it. On top of this, Pro has failed to adequately defend his resolution against my refutations. Thus, the resolution is negated.So, I strongly urge a vote for Con, and thank you for reading.Reference[1] Please see link #3 in my round 2 references.