Site would be better called "WHY 435?"
30,000?
Why not 3,000 or 300,000 or 3 million or 30 million, etc.? 
Methinks you haven't actually visited the website... and/or have taken the site's name to mean something different than it does.
Personally, I think a MUCH better name for the site would be "Why 435?"
Instead, he chose the 30,000 because that was the original number of citizens per representative... it is NOT the "number of REPRESENTATIVES" the site is proposing that we have NOW.
(In fact the site proposes a number of reps of approximately 6,000 [which would be six-thousand.org] -- to return us to a ratio of 1 rep per 50,000 [which would be fifty-thousand.org] -- and the reason behind that is so it would be in line with the TOP provision in the original
proposed "Article the First" that was [sadly] not ratified.)
I like the website, and the basic concept, and agree with MANY of the proposals, the exception being the proposed number of 6,000 reps. While I agree with increasing the number (and that substantially) I do not think it is necessary to try returning SO DRAMATICALLY to a 1 per 50,000 ratio -- and indeed, I think the founders would have understood that such a large number was relatively unworkable; but they failed to comprehend the possibility of the extent and speed with which the population would grow.
Thus the original "proposal" was for the following:
Reps....PerPop....Total Population
~60.....30,000....~2,000,000 +
>100....40,000....~4,000,000 +
>200....50,000....~10,000,000 +
...and there the founders stopped,
because I think they simply couldn't IMAGINE a country with a population greater than 10 million people! (In their defense, this WAS pre Louisiana Purchase and pre industrial revolution, heck, the entire population of England at the time was far less than ten million -- and since the founder envisaged an agrarian "farmer" society, they couldn't estimate the explosion of urban areas... even still, estimating a growth of 5x was a good try and demonstrated long-term thinking, just not exponential growth thinking!)
But they DID lay down a principle -- an equation for an increasing ratio -- and if we extrapolate on the "equation" that was inherently proposed, then with greater populations, it would look something like this:
Reps....PerPop....Total Population
~60.....30,000....~2,000,000 +
>100....40,000....~4,000,000 +
>200....50,000....~10,000,000 +
>300....60,000....~18,000,000 +
>400....70,000....~28,000,000 +
>500....80,000....~40,000,000 +
>600....90,000....~54,000,000 +
>700....100,000...~70,000,000 +
>800....110,000...~88,000,000 +
>900....120,000...~108,000,000 +
>1,000..130,000...~130,000,000 +
>1,100..140,000...~154,000,000 +
>1,200..150,000...~180,000,000 +
>1,300..160,000...~208,000,000 +
>1,400..170,000...~238,000,000 +
>1,500..180,000...~270,000,000 +
>1,600..190,000...~304,000,000 +
>1,700..200,000...~340,000,000 +
...etc
Thus, currently we would have between 1,500 and 1,600 Congressman -- or between 3 to 4 times as many as we have currently. (THAT would be possible -- in my state it would mean that instead of my congressman's "district" covering about 4 counties, there would be one congressman for each county).
How could they all "sit" together at one time?
I think by proposing ADDITIONAL "Federal Cities" -- i.e. that Washington D.C. does not need to be the ONLY place -- AND the use of modern communications technologies -- who says they all HAVE to be in one city (heck who says they have to TRAVEL at all... this isn't 1789... we have telephones and internet now)! Indeed, by expanding the number and SPREADING them around... think how more difficult it would be for lobbyists and "cartels" to form. Corrupting 1,600 people in four or five (or maybe even 10) locations would be a bit more difficult -- no, not impossible -- but definitely more expensive and difficult.
The OTHER place I think the website is wrong is in saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to get this to happen!
While he certainly understands the desire of those IN POWER to retain and enhance that power...
What he fails to contemplate is AMBITION.
Nearly every county supervisor
aspires to become a state assemblyman, and every state assemblyman aspires to be a US Congressman (and nearly every Congressman aspires to be a Senator, and every Senator {even freshmen senators -- aka BHO} aspire to be President/Emperor.)
The point in
effective political movement is not to
deny the reality of human nature (especially vices), but to
USE human nature to achieve a goal.
Thus, the effort to expand Congress would be best aimed at STATE LEGISLATURES -- where every assemblyman would
easily be capable of imagining him or herself thus becoming a Federal Congressman -- especially in a scenario where the "bar" that needs to be jumped is significantly LOWER than it currently is.
And, interestingly enough -- the original proposed
Congressional Apportionment Amendment has NO EXPIRATION... and if ratified by an additional 27 state legislatures (which are FULL of ambitious politicians) it would become law.
Now granted, if that OLD amendment were passed -- we would, in fact end up with about 6,000 Congressman.
But THAT in and of itself... get just one or two legislatures to pass that amendment would probably be sufficient to SCARE the SH*T out of the current gang of 435 --
enough that they MIGHT be willing to contemplate writing and passing an alteranate "compromise" amendment -- one that would say, only double or triple the number of representatives (rather than multiply it by 14)
So it IS possible -- and immensely MORE possible than, say, the repeal of the 17th amendment.
