Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress.

Thank you DetectableNinja for taking time to respond to my debate. Yes, I had in mind the United States when starting this debate, but I don't see why it can't apply to every nation. Surveys as the best method to express people's opinion. The Pew Research Center, Gallup, CNN, USA Today, NBC, ABC and CBS for example all conduct polls. These surveys do have a sampling error and perhaps the questions are not framed in the best matter. However, survey results are accepted as the best reflection of the current opinion. These polls are used in practice by policy makers and by news organizations as statistical evidence of public opinion. 1) Statistic or Sampling Error Yes, its true that sampling error is part of any survey. Its a natural characteristic of any data collection project. However, if most people agree on the methodology and the fairness of the poll, the results of the poll can be used as a representation of the population. There are errors associated with elections, but do we constantly disregard election results? On some occasions yes, but on most occasions people accept the results. 2a) Surveys are Efficient I can agree that surveys are costly, however they are not inefficient. The internet has made for very efficient collection of data. The survey results can be saved year after year. As certain issues resurface, people can decide to stick with their answers from previous years or to change their answer. The fact that the 111th Senate (2009-10) voted a total of 696 times underlies the need for an elected representative. Many poll questions may not have enough respondents or a majority of people may have answered "No Opinion" or "Need More Information". 3) Not a Direct Democracy The argument that embedding surveys into the political process is the same as a direct democracy is a classic strawman argument. Its informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of my position. When I speak about a 50/50 tie, that also means a statistical tie. For example, if 52% are for and issues and 48% against, with a 4% margin of error, its a statistical tie. A politician would be need in theses cases to break the tie. A politician is also need when not enough sample data has been collected or the majority express "No Opinion". A politician is also need to negotiate certain trade offs. For example, if constituent want to spend more on health care and education but less on defense, there have to be numbers assigned to those spending requests. The politician will ultimately be the representative of the people to decide on exact figures. I would like a more democratic process in politics, but not a direct democracy. 4) Surveys would enhance the Right to Petition The Right to Petition would not be taken away just because a prior survey has been taken. Its a baseline right included in the First Amendment and can be exercised at any time. The Right to Petition would be enhanced because people can use the survey to express their opinion and petition the politician to vote in a certain manner. I am arguing that scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote. At the time they are administered, surveys are the best measure of the will of the people. The United States governmental system is based on the participation of the people. Surveys are a logical extension of one aspect of democracy, letting your voice be heard. Using surveys to conduct policy is a hybrid system, let the surveys speak when possible. However, there are certain exclusions and cases where surveys many not yield usable results. In those cases a politician is still vital.