You bring up a point I decided not to address, due to excessive length already in my post.
Delegates George Mason, and Edmund Randolph didn’t sign the draft Constitution, due in part, because they feared the House of Reps would become an aristocratic institution. Even at 1:30,000, that was too many constituents. Only the better off, and not the common citizen, would have the resources to campaign. Representatives were supposed to be just that, neighbors that most people knew in their community.
The Anti-Federalists back then would freak out at the one to over 720,000 ratio today.
But, how many members can a House of Reps have before it becomes too unwieldly?
Oh, and yes, the 17A’s evil sibling, the 16A must go as well.
Thank you for your reply. Actually, there is a simple solution to the size of the House. Either at one blow or progressively, divide up the current districts by an odd number, until we achieve a ratio of about 100,000:1.
Right now, that would be about 7x the number of Representatives and I believe that with modern technology, it would be possible for a citizen statesman/woman to communicate effectively with that many neighbors.
The Representatives for each supra-district (composed of the 7 subdivisions) would elect among themselves a “Speaker of the District”. That individual would operate in D.C. The rest would reside in their home districts and participate in debates and voting electronically. They would submit their votes to the Speaker of the District. When the roll is called, the Speaker would announce the number of ayes, nays and abstentions from his supra-district.
This arrangement would have 2 additional bonuses. Right now, all of our Reps reside in D.C. most of the year where lobbyists and special interests have 24/7 access to them most of the year and We the People do not. It would be nearly impossible for lobbyists to go to all of the Reps in their home districts to influence them.
It would also preclude back door deals. The Speaker of the District could not speak for the other Representatives.
There may be better ways to address the logistics, but this is clearly workable and economic. The salaries could be reduced dramatically and the Speakers, residing in D.C. could be given a per diem to cover the cost of maintaining 2 residences.
The Constitution only says that the House must all meet in Washington, D.C. once per year and there is no time limit or requirement. They could all meet in D.C. for a few days or a week each year. There are adequate hotel accommodations to permit this. There is no prohibition of Representatives conducting business from their districts, even though the possibility at the time did not exist.
Maybe, we could eventually reduce the number of days that the House is in session much like the Texas legislature.