I know. Naturally, it'd be something like an S-curve (though it would begin at the origin). So that any group over a thousand or so probably needs at least 5-10, and you reach the 50-100 range very quickly.
But there is no reason the number should decline again. Many nations smaller than the US have more national representation. The issue is significant, because it meaningfully increases the incentive for corporations to finance politicians, and meaningfully decreases the ability of politicians to connect to a constituency. The US is a bigger nation, so will naturally have a "higher" constituents/representatives ratio. But there's no reason for it to be SO much higher.
In the canton of Geneva there are 100 MPs for a total population of 191'000 people. When I first arrived here I thought that was ridiculous, but then I realized they were part-time workers. At some point my old boss was elected and he didn't have to give up his day job, and all the councils were held on thursday nights.
I think it makes more sense to have 100 people working part time to have a real representation of the diversity of opinion, then 8 people working full time.
But I agree with you, it needs to be a S-curve. Somewhere above 200 people it probably doesn't make to increase it at all.
