[RightWhale]

A Congress of 10,000! It's probably not statistically necessary to have so many, but it would bring Congress back to a more representative level. Logistics for 10,000 would be interesting.

[inquest]

Thanks for that post. This idea needs to be talked about more. People might object that a 3000-member H.R. might be too "unwieldy", but upon analysis that argument breaks down. Certainly if all 3000 are talking at once it would get unwieldy. But of course, 5 people talking at once can get plenty cacophonous. Not everybody would have to be speaking, or even necessarily be on a committee. The House doesn't need to think as an collective body at all. It's enough that there are a number (however large) of individuals, whose individual job is to keep himself as educated as possible about the various issues facing the country, and about the various proposals on the table, to talk them over with his associates and with his constituents, and to cast an informed vote on them. Just like they do now, only with better accountability. What sane person could be opposed to that?

[breakem]

I was hoping for fewer states and a smaller senate.

[Xthe17th]

RE: Thousands of representatives: BE CAREFUL!! Heed the words of James Madison in his Federalist Letter 10:

"In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures."

[PISANO]

Not only would I want their numbers to either remain the same or SHRINK, much more than that, I would LOVE to see them in session MUCH MUCH LESS. Maybe about 3 months out of the year. Make NO LAW is my motto. Do the appropriations bills and GET OUT of town. The regulations that result from the laws passed in this country are mind-boggling!!

[Aarchaeus]

Just what we need! More ....ing congressvermin! Only way I'd agree with it is if we could elect a bunch of them, and then declare an open season, no bag limit.