1790: Total population: 3,893,874 people.
1791: 105 Representatives.
Average Congressional district size = ~ 37,000 people.

1900: Total population: ~ 76 million people.
1901: 386 Representatives.
Average Congressional district size = ~ 195,000 people.

2000: Total population: ~ 281 million people.
2001: 435 Representatives.
Average Congressional district size = ~ 647,000 people.


[b]There are just too many damn people!!![/b] [soapbox]


No wonder the Gov't is so out of touch with the people - there's no WAY a single person can effectively represent the voices of [b]650,000[/b] people!!!

But for us to get back to the REASONABLE level of representation that our FFs began this nation with, we'd have to have a US House of Representatives with almost 7,600 members! [:O]

I don't think I want to go there either!

i'm sorry. did  you say something?

With so many bleating sheeple, it is hard to present an opposing yet relevant opinion.

Sometimes I'm actually thankful for voter apathy!

[img]http://members.cox.net/the-macallan/MacsPics3/VoterConfusion.jpg[/img]

THEN YOU JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE HEARD.  PROBLEM ISN'T BEING HEARD, IT IS FINDING OTHER PEOPLE SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND.

But yeah, try living in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Almost all my votes turn out the opposite direction.  You wouldn't believe some of the shit people here vote for.  I can't even eat horse meat anymore.  Plus any bond measure passes even though there was a bond measure for the same thing on the last elections. Ugh, if only everyone was as smart as me. [:)]

Hey Ratters, don't try and turn this into another gay thread, okay? [;D]

cynic