> The amount of people who believe that democracy is somehow inherently good for the people is beyond my belief. Not just inherently good, but unquestionably g

> The amount of people who believe that democracy is somehow inherently good for the people is beyond my belief. Not just inherently good, but unquestionably good. It has so many flaws, yet it's goodness is assumed as unassailable. The design of a Republic serves to address some of the most obvious flaws. The biggest issue I see with the way republics currently operate is that there isn't a clear mechanism for handling bandwidth and processing constraints. When the US was founded for example, congressional apportionment was one representative per 57,169 people. Today it is 747,184. The problem here is that it becomes impossible for a representative to effectively represent the disparate interests of that many people and it's also difficult for the representative to adequate sampling the interests of that many people. There are bandwidth constraints between representatives and constituents and there are processing constraints with handling more constituents. Having a mechanism to manage apportionment for better outcomes seems like one key overlooked feature. We should have far more representatives and we should have more senators per state. This would also create more processing power for those representatives to spend time refactoring and improving existing laws instead of merely serving as commit generators. Today we discuss the power of the 1%, but that's nothing in comparison with the power of the 0.00016% (538/327.2 million). https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-population-keeps-growing-but-house-of-representatives-is-same-size-as-in-taft-era/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-populat...