Are legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives truly representative of the voters that put them in office? The motivation for the question is the fact that, on average, each congressional district has a 730,000+ population. In 1789 that number was roughly 30,000.
- It would be more expensive to pay more congressmen and their facilities and staff.
(That's the only con I can think of at the moment.)
- In context of the entire Federal budget the expense of operating the legislature is not significant.
- The more members of the legislature we have, the more difficult it is for PACs and other special interest groups to influence (buy) individual legislators.
- With smaller districts a campaign could be run for less expense which would enable more candidates.
- Smaller districts would align more readily with natural boundaries of real communities.
- Smaller districts would enhance the political power of more diverse communities.
There is much more to say on this. I'll be back.