[nitzy]

You are claiming that they would act the same under both systems. I think a representative who answers to 30,000 would behave much differently than one who answers to 700,000. I think a better comparison would be 6000 ants vs. 435 fire ants. Or another would be 6000 people doing want you want vs. 435 people telling you what to do.

[Kirkwood]

You're presuming that you’re diluting a problem and therefore making it controllable, but that is just wishful thinking. The problem is not diluted and is still there. It becomes much harder to control when you have thousands of representatives who will still be forming coalitions with one another and not representing their constituents. Consider anything that is a problem and ask yourself if you really think it is better to spread the problem around or better to keep it contained. Do you think it is better to have hundreds of drug dealers spread across a community or one crack house on the corner? Do you think it is better to have hundreds of small terrorist cells in cities around the country or 1 large cell? Do you want to deal with one mound of fire ants or have to deal with hundreds of small ones? Do you want mold on one section of wall or mold spread throughout your house? At the extreme, you are advocating a democracy where everyone represents themselves, and we know the problems with that form of government. I can't see why anyone would want to move away from a limited republic and toward a larger government.