Expand the house. Drop the ratio to something much closer to the original one, (1 representative for 30,000 people). It’s theorized that a ratio around 1:100,000 is low enough to provide more accountability. It would mean a house around 3600 representatives but they’d be very responsible to their local communities. And we could institute a system where only senior members are in D.C. with others joining them only for very sensitive meetings that couldn’t be held using the secure intranet the military has.
This expansion would obliterate party control and lobbying. There’s just too many representatives at that point and too many seats to fund. The price tag of campaigning would drop precipitously, making elections intensely local again.
Expand the house. Drop the ratio to something much closer to the original one, (1 representative for 30,000 people). It’s theorized that a ratio around 1:100,000 is low enough to provide more accountability. It would mean a house around 3600 representatives but they’d be very responsible to their local communities. And we could institute a system where only senior members are in D.C. with others joining them only for very sensitive meetings that couldn’t be held using the secure intranet the military has.
This expansion would obliterate party control and lobbying. There’s just too many representatives at that point and too many seats to fund. The price tag of campaigning would drop precipitously, making elections intensely local again.