[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.

[Flying Circus]

The more people a representative “represents” the less answerable they are, the less voice the individual voter has with them and the more influence lobbyists from outside their district can have with them. Large districts can also be gerrymandered to stifle dissenting voices and groups and limit their voice in congress. With more contact with their representatives, people will become more engaged in the political process because they can be heard.

Representatives will have their powers diluted. They won’t get as many perks and won’t be able to live so much by a different set of rules than the average American. As such they will have our interests more at heart.