Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress.

I hope that we will both be enlightened to some degree by this debate. So, good luck, and onto my argument. The Best Way? I agree with Pro that a politician's duty "is to carry forth the will of the people. " However, this is where I deviate away from Pro. He claims that scientific surveys are the best way to express the people's will. However, he provides no reasons as to why the people's will is best expressed by surveys, besides an example where 95% of people are decidedly for a speed limit being raised. However, I submit that surveys are in fact inferior to the current system in place in the United States (which I assume is the country being discussed). There are a couple reasons for this. Surveys Aren't the Best1. Scientific Surveys Naturally Have Error. In his explanation of a scientific survey, Pro suggests that they are being done via a random sample to represent the population (assumingly to avoid political influence). The problem with this is that a random sampling naturally has random sampling error, even without a biased survey [1]. Therefore, the population and will of the people is not accurately represented.2. Scientific Surveys would be InefficientNot only can they have error, but scientific surveys would, politically and legislatively, be very inefficient as well. This is because of a couple things.2a. Surveys are Too SlowThe US Senate, only 1/2 of the US Congress, votes a lot. In fact, the 111th Senate (2009-10) voted a total of 696 times [2], on a wide variety of topics. Now, to take a random sampling on the opinions of the people about all of those topics would take too long of a time, logically, for each topic to vote on.3. Not a Direct Democracy? Pro claims that he is not arguing for a direct democracy, indicating that a direct democracy doesn't work well. First, I'd like to describe a direct democracy. A direct democracy "usually refers to citizens making policy and law decisions in person, without going through representatives and legislatures," [3]. Now, at first one may say that Pro's argument is not suggesting a direct democracy, seeing as how his argument entails representatives. However, when further examined, I submit that Pro's argument is indeed, effectively a direct democracy. His resolution is that if the majority of a legislator's constituents have a certain opinion, then the legislator should and must vote that way. Under Pro's system, a politician is simply the direct mouthpiece of the people. The problem with this, in relation to direct democracy, is that this renders the purpose of a representative legislator effectively useless. It is true that Pro cites a 50/50 tie where this is not the case, but situations such as those are so rare, and can be resolved by surveying more people, that the purpose of a politician remains obsolete. Therefore, the representatives as described by Pro can logically be dismissed from the equation, seeing as how a congressional district is still effectively voting based on its majority opinion, and that district's majority vote is being effectively tabulated with all other districts' majority votes. And thus, Pro's system is, in fact, practically a direct democracy, and according to Pro is therefore an undesirable and poor system.4. Surveys would Take Away the Right to Petition. As Pro stated, the First Amendment to the US Constitution gives its citizens the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," [4]. Pro also states that, "A survey system enhances the First Amendment right to Petition. The right to Petition includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation. " This logic is flawed, however. While it's true that the people's will would be expressed initially in a vote, the right to petition would be taken away. This is because the people would not be able to petition until another survey took the same opinion. However, this would not happen again unless another vote would be taken--which would not occur anyway, because it is assumed the direct will of the people would be exercised. Summary My initial argument can be summed up with a contention. (P1) Scientific surveys naturally have error. (P2) Scientific surveys would be inefficient. (P3) The survey system would effectively be direct democracy, which Pro says is a poor system. (P4) Scientific surveys would restrict the people's right to petition. (C) The survey system should not be implemented. Thank you, and I await Pro's response. References[1] . http://www.experiment-resources.com...[2] . http://www.senate.gov...[3] . http://www.co-intelligence.org...[4] . http://www.usconstitution.net...