Direct representation should be adopt for legislatures

I acknowledge my opponent"s knowledge in the subject matter. Point 1: I acknowledge my opponent"s point. Point 2: Regarding my opponent"s rebuttal to point 2, I believe he may have missed my original intention. According to the definitions he drew for direct representation, each delegate"s votes should be in accordance to the number of voters who have voted for him/her. In other words, for example, a popular delegate will be able to cast a vote worth three times as worthy as that of his less popular colleague. Some delegates will start out at a legal advantage whereas others will be discriminated against. In Congress, all delegates should be treated equally. Otherwise, policy becomes skewed towards the already popular. Democracy is about representation of all, majority and minority alike. How exactly should Congress be any assistance to that sentiment if each delegate starts out on different grounds? How would it affect minority delegates when they know that the other delegates are not valuing their support right from the start? A majority will be less likely to compromise their policies to benefit individual minority delegates constituents for there is not an incentive to do so as these minority individuals cannot repay adequately in terms of votes when needed. As a result, minorities will become excluded overall from the majority who will continue to make popular policies without concerning the minorities since approaching each minority delegate is not worthwhile. Congress, over time, will become polarized between minority and majority. That is exactly what we don"t need. While direct representation may seem like an ideal political system that can serve to get many minorities into congress, it will not serve as a great means to allow them, once in congress, to have power for great change because they are usually at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to voter support. If so, how would this be any different from the Winner-takes-all system? Point 3: Once again, I believe my opponent have missed my point concerning point three. Assuming that a representative can be elected by appealing to only a certain , very secluded, very extreme population, which it can under direct representation, he/she will. THat will be the easy way out. Needless to say, such will not fuel compromise because the representative answers only to one small population. Once the main incentive for people to compromise their views is gone, they will feel less inclined to do so. As the country becomes further polarized, different interest groups are going to ask of different things to be done. In that case, gridlock might happen. Gridlock might leave the voters frustrated, however, the delegates will still not have the inherent interest to compromise because constituency interest from region to region has varied too far for the result to satisfy their individual constituencies. The examples my opponent brought up concerning the debt ceiling and so on actually serve to prove as to why direct representation will lead to gridlock. As previously explained, direct representation encourages polarization of opinions. As important as it is for all opinions to be represented, the Winner Takes All system will do that to a degree that still allows for some efficiency in the country. As previously stated, in order to attain votes, the legislators often seek to combine interests of many interest groups. It is impossible for a country as large as the United States to make everybody happy. However, that is essentially what direct representation is trying to acheive.THe most important decisions made in a country should, instead deviate towards the median. This way, policy will operate in a way that is sustainable for all. THe winner-takes-all system will allow for an earlier onset compromises for the legislator, especially, but also for the voters who will indirectly be participating in the compromising by choosing their desired legislators out of the pool of applicants. Direct representation will fuel the opposite. Thus, making it unpractical. While voters may not ideally be expected to compromise, they are in reality. America cannot satisfy every single person, therefore, they have to compromise. However, if citizens loose that incentive to do so and elect someone radical and adamant in opinions, the country will find difficulty in establishing change.