[whoopdedo]

> Are there 435 people in this nation well versed enough to write detailed regulations

That's part of the problem. 435 is far too low for a representative democracy. The U.S. has the highest representation ratio among OECD nations[1]. The size of Congress has been held at this arbitrary number despite the size of the country growing threefold. The value of being in Congress, or being able to influence a member of Congress is enormous. As is the competition to get into one of those 435 seats. Is it any wonder big money controls so much of politics now?

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-populat...

[greyface-]

> 435 is far too low for a representative democracy.

Imagine a world in which the Congressional Apportionment Amendment had been ratified in 1789. The House would have more than 6,000 members today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...

[colejohnson66]

If it had been ratified in 1789, the "mathematical discrepancy" would have appeared between 8 and 10 million citizens. We're well past that now, and could ratify it if the states wanted to screw over Congress.[a] It wouldn't even need to be reintroduced, as submitted amendments don't "expire".[b]

[a]: Twelve states already signed on, just need a few dozen more

[b]: Case in point, the 27th Amendment[0] was submitted to the states for ratification at the same time (1789), but never had enough states sign on until 1991.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_th...