I initially thought this was a bad idea. If we followed GW's recommended ratio of 30,000 constituents to 1 representative, the house today would consist of ~10,

I initially thought this was a bad idea. If we followed GW's recommended ratio of 30,000 constituents to 1 representative, the house today would consist of ~10,000 representatives. Which seems ridiculous. You would need a sports stadium just to fit all of them in one place. But as I think about it more, I'm coming around to the idea. Instead of voting in representatives that we are completely disconnected from, we would instead vote in representatives whom we have some form of personal connection with. 30,000 constituents is about the size of a medium-sized university. Whenever someone runs for office, you would most likely know someone who knows that person on a personal level. Someone who can either vouch for them, or tell you all their red flags. And as the author pointed out, candidates wouldn't need to worry about fundraising nearly as much, since they can rely on their personal network to campaign effectively. In theory this should mean that the average representative would be smarter, more capable, and of better moral character. And a house comprised of smarter, more capable, and more morally upstanding representatives would function a lot better than what we have now. The house would need to be fundamentally changed of course. The "office-oriented" culture would need to evolve into something that is more remote, decentralized, and distributed. And for starters, all voting would have to be done digitally. It would be a radical shift, but one that has real potential.