Constitutional Limits of Representation

The most important issue never resolved was the issue of fairness. In particular, the discussion of fairness was cut short by the imposition of ideology - mostly on constitutional terms.

In these ideological debates, a great deal is made of the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the first 10 Amendments, but very little attention if paid to the intrinsic wisdom in other areas.

If you step back from the Constitution and look at it as a system of governance, not government, much of the ideological barricading is quickly lost. 

For example, the number of Representatives.
Section 2 (where the House is defined), Clause 3 states: " ..The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.."
One representative for every 30,000 people allows a great deal of interaction within the representatives' areas.
The Constitution wisely fixes the ratio for representation, but does not fix the size of the House of Representatives.

The present ratio of 700,000 to 1 does not.
While it may have been difficult in 1787 for a single person to attend to the needs of 30,000; it is impossible in 2010 for a single person to attend to the needs of 700,000.

There may be whatever arguments made about advances in technology, staff efficiency, and communication, but the fact remains that many people (perhaps nearly everyone) do not feel they are served well by their Representatives in Congress. There is a very good reason: It is beyond human capacity to do so.

Using a concept from sociology called the Dunbar limit even with a 30,000 to 1 ratio, each Representative would required a staff of at least 200. To accommodate the present 700,000 to 1 ratio, every Representative would need a staff of 4,700!!
And those numbers are needed within the Representatives' districts; not counting the professionals needed in the Representatives' offices in Washington, DC.

Taking the same Dunbar limit and applying it to the Representatives' capacity to deal with their own staff indicates that a Representative would have been pushed to attend to the needs put forth by their 200 staff members; but cannot reasonably and humanly attend to the needs put forth by 4,700.
Based on Constitutional mandates, each Representative will need at least 32 staff (not counting professionals) in Washington to manage the local volunteers or individual groups, or we need another 32 times as many Representatives.

When people feel they are not listened to and treated unfairly by the Congress, it comes down to a very scientific reality: They are not.

Given that a Representative can only attend to the needs of about 150 people, what group will get their attention? For the average person, it becomes a lottery - matter of luck - to find a moment of attention from their Representative.
However, there are other groups close to Washington that take up all of the energy and time a Representative has to offer.

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is ignored. The result is a dissonance that goes both ways, and the government does not work well. We have the science to tell us why, and don't apply it.