JEQuidam

Those are certainly appropriate questions, and I have given this a lot of thought. However, I do not want to try to solution this thing out in its entire implementation. I can see several different ways to implement it, but I don't want to speculate on those now. If there were a committee to identify and evaluate the solutions, then you should be on it.

I did provide one possible arrangment on the TTO home page:
Q10: How do all those Representatives fit into one building?

...but I thought it was amusing. I actually couldn't think of an antonym for "anarchist" (architect was suggested above by a clever young lady). Perhaps you could describe me as a small r republican; i.e., I am committed to the republican form of government.

You're raising a point that is far more interesting than you may realize. No maximum district size was ever set.

The very first amendment inscribed on our Bill of Rights was never ratified to our Constitution. Very few people know anything about the history of this amendment, the fact that it contains an inexplicable mathematical error, or that all the states but one affirmed it before being it was completely forgotten by history. Here is a short article I wrote about this:
http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com/

Here is the text of "Article the first" (along with the additional 11 amendments proposed in the BoR):
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/BoR_text.htm

Here is an interesting story about how 30,000 came to be the minimum size specified in the Constitution:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages...Washington.htm

__________________
It was supposed to be our House.