Originally Posted by JEQuidam

Well, let's skip over the fact that you're disregardng many of Madison't other quotes on this subject which produce a different conclusion, and we'll focus on your point: "...AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER..." (If you want to debate that point, let's start a new thread so as to not bore everyone else.)

I assume you'll then agree that the people of this country should discuss and debate what that "sufficient number" is. I realize that "435" has now become a holy number for many, and that it is sacrilegious to challenge said number. But can the rest of us debate how large our districts should be? In which case, you should argue that reducing the size of the House would be best for the Republic.

Here is my fundamental argument: the total population of our country has tripled since the size of the House was first set at 435. Our average congressional district now consists of 700,000++ people, that will grow to approximately 1,300,000 people per Representative by 2100. I believe that it is NOT possible for a Representative to faithfully represent the diverse views and interests of 700,000++ people. You believe that they can properly represent 700,000++ people. So, we disagree on that fundamental point, which is a matter of belief, and neither of us can provide a certain proof that invalidates the other's view. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to debate what that number should be.