Replies

The U. S. Constitution originally stipulated that there would be one representative for every 30,000 people.

I've always thought that was a good thing.

Here in Maine, there are two representatives for 1,300,000 people.

How is it even remotely possible for a representative to be responsive to his constituents when his constituency is so enormous. It's absurd.

I say the more the better, bring on gridlock so that as little damage as possible will be done.

I agree with you. The framers expected a representative to know his constituents because his job was to vote based on a general 'sense' he got about their position on a any given issue. Now, they vote as their told and their constituents be damned. That's possible in a system where congressmen are too busy chasing after dollars.

Under Article I there would be 1 representative for every 30,000 persons or over 10,000 critters today. Do they need to be in Washington? They only spend a couple of days there now. They can work part-time from home which is reasonable with only 30,000 people to answer to. Also, imagine how response they'd be if they acutally had to live, work, shop, attend ballgames, church, etc. with the people they represented. (Our system was framed in opposition to Britain's system where Londoners, in essence, represented everyone everywhere.) Besides, with the hefty reduction in congressional pay they'll have actual jobs demanding most of their time. They can visit DC for their swearing in and a few ceremonial occasions. Technology (real high tech devices like the telephone) makes this possible.

Also, while there will always be plenty of money to buy votes, just imagine the logistics involved in paying off 1000, 2000 or 5001 critters. The paperwork involved. The travel.