More representatives would mean more precise representation, since otherwise local tyrannies of majorities can drown out some viewpoints entirely. For example,

More representatives would mean more precise representation, since otherwise local tyrannies of majorities can drown out some viewpoints entirely. For example, if each congressional district has 55% of people with one view and 45% with another view on some controversial topic, it is possible that only the winning 55% view is represented in Congress because every district is won by a representative who advocates for the majority view. With more representation and finer-grained districting, the likelihood of those other 45% of constituents feeling disenfranchised is reduced. We may end up with something closer to 55-45 representation of this hypothetical issue in Congress, instead of 100-0. Furthermore, it is a lot harder/more expensive to lobby (or bribe) thousands of representatives versus a few hundred. It is harder for unethical activity to be undertaken without scrutiny. While we're at it, let's also have runoff voting of some sort and get closer to issue-based voting rather than coalition/party-based tribalism. As for those calling out the downsides of a direct democracy and exposure to uninformed voters - I would say we are already exposed to the risks of uninformed voters, and we are also exposed to all sorts of expensive political gamesmanship. To me it feels like our current democratic process (in the US anyways) is more of a popularity contest reflecting who has the biggest expenditure of [time/effort/money] and strongest populist ground game.