>>>One of my thoughts on why they changed it is because you can convince a smaller number of people to make bad laws much easier than you can a larger number.
(For example, I might be able to convince ONE or TWO people to help me go rob a bank, but I would have a much tougher time convincing TEN people to help me).
The only problem with that is if I wanted to rob a bank (note: I don't, mission doomed to fail, the banksters rob us serfs), I would farm for as many candidates as possible and find the best candidates to pilfer the bank. With more people one could be more efficient, and thus, rob the bank (the people) even better.
While you make a valid point (and probably a more natural allegory to my "hire a good team") wouldn't it be easier for the lobbyists if each rep only had X amount of constituents?
So you have the team/coin (Dems and GOP) and one could more cheaply and easily sway someone with a smaller constituency, no? It would cost less money to buy them up, but probably the same $ overall.
I like the idea, though.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: