Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress.

Response to Pro1) "Statistic or Sampling Error"Here, Pro agrees that error occurs as a natural part of a survey. However, he then proceeds to respond just by dismissing the point, citing that people generally do not refute elections which can have error as well. This logic is flawed, in that there is a key difference between an election and a random poll or survey. As well, there is vastly more room for error with surveys and polls than elections.1a) RandomWith Pro's resolution, he proposes that the surveys are using a random sample. This is very different from an election in which practically all US citizens who are above 18 have the right to vote [1]. This is clearly different in that a survey merely gathers the opinions of a random assortment of people, while an election gathers the opinions of everyone who votes. On top of this (as Pro insinuates in section 3), many people may not respond to a survey or poll. Thus, there is a clear indication that less citizen's opinions are included with a survey, and thus opinions from different standpoints have less potential to be weighed in a representative, random sample.1b) Coverage Bias and ExclusionMost polls are conducted by dialing random telephone numbers [2]. These random numbers, however, generally exclude mobile (cell) phones, due to its illegality. This leads to "coverage bias," and excludes a demographic of people that live in wireless homes (homes without landlines--12.6% of the population in 2006 [2]). Therefore, an entire set of opinions can easily be excluded by having legislators pay sole attention to decisive polls, which may otherwise be not as decisive. This also can apply to internet users and non-internet users, but that will be discussed later.1c) The Shy Elephant FactorThe Shy Elephant Factor is "term used to demonstrate a party bias in polling results," [3]. To make it more specific, it has been shown that conservatives are less likely "to participate in exit polls or other types of opinion polls over liberals,"[3]. What this does is it creates much more liberally skewed opinions in polls. This, logically, means that the polls and surveys which Pro indicates politicians must vote by can, and in reality many times are, unfairly biased toward a certain opinion, and thus does not accurately represent the people's will and opinions. This destroys Pro's argument of non bias in polls.2) "Surveys are Efficient"Pro implies that the polls and surveys would be conducted via internet, thus the collection of opinions is very efficient, and "can be saved year after year. " The problem with this is that this method of opinion gathering excludes people as well. According to ITU, as of June 2010, 77.3% of the US population has access to, and uses, the internet [4]. While at first this may seem like enough to conduct opinion polls and surveys, there is a problem. And that problem is the 22.7% of the population that does not use the internet. For polls to be effective, even on their own in separate congressional districts, everyone, 100%, must be able to be polled. Without this, a random sample would be ineffective, not giving a portion of the population a chance to have a say on a certain topic. So, surveys have another strike against them as a system.3) "Not a Direct Democracy"With this argument from Pro, I will agree that what he is arguing, even though excessively flawed (as I have proved), is not a direct democracy. However, this section of Pro's does bring up another point against his proposed system. Pro states that "A politician is also need (sic) when not enough sample data has been collected or the majority express 'No Opinion'. " The point that this brings up is more of a question. Pro states that, in effect, politicians are necessary for when he survey system fails. From this, I propose I question: if politicians are necessary as a backup for the survey system, and politicians can vote without it, then why is the system, which is full of flaws, even used in the first place?4) "Surveys would enhance the Right to Petition"Again, I will agree with Pro that surveys can enhance the right to petition. HOWEVER, I feel as though the question must be raised: for whom is the Right to Petition enhanced? It is only enhanced for the people and demographics that, by sheer chance, are represented in a congressional district most accurately, regardless of whether they accurately represent the people's will. It is possible for people to petition their government, but they would do so more frequently, and at a greater cost. I cite the protests in my state of Wisconsin of Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, where tens of thousands of protesters marched on the capitol, [5]. While, regardless one's opinions on the subject, the people were exercising their right to petition, one cannot ignore the effects of the protests. The Madison Metropolitan School District had to cancel classes for nearly a week due to a lack of teachers. As well, Milwaukee Public Schools, the largest district in the state had to close for a day for the same reason, along with numerous other schools [6]. On top of all this, nearly half of the Wisconsin senate walked out, stalling any legislation on the bill for quite a while. I could list effects for much longer, but, suffice it to say, there were countless effects, mainly negative. Now, imagine similar situations appearing more frequently as a result of flawed surveying (as it's been proved to be), except on a nationwide scale. I believe that one can come to the conclusion that that would be undesirable. Additional ArgumentsThe Survey System is UnnecessaryPro's argument for a survey system is, mainly, that it best expresses the people's will on a politician. However, I submit that this system is unnecessary, in that the people's will is already expressed in the US through the elections of politicians. When a politician runs, he/she runs with a stance in mind on the key issues o the day. The people in a district hold an election and vote based on which candidate best represents what they want on the issues. This is how the people's will is expressed, in the electing of a representative itself. While, as Pro pointed out, there can be flaws in this system, it can be found that an election system simply has less room for error than a random sample survey system, effectively rendering a survey system useless and unnecessary. SummaryMy argument can, once again, be summed up in two contentions. (P1) A survey system takes the opinions of far fewer people than elections. (P2) With a survey system, demographics are easily left out of the polls. (P3) There can and is bias in many opinion polls. (C1) A survey system has more error than just elections. (P1) A survey system has more error than just elections. (P2) The effects of an error-filled survey system are undesirable. (P3) Survey systems are unnecessary. (C2) Survey systems should not be implemented. Thank you, and again, I await Pro's response. References[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://ballotpedia.org...[4] . http://www.internetworldstats.com...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...