That's how it works now. The size of Congress is a function of the population, while the Senate is a fixed 2 per state. You're correct though that a larger legislature (in terms of number of representatives) would make bribes (including political favors often used to pass unpopular legislation) more difficult, because the marginal return on each bribe is diminished.
You are correct. I should have said "the proportion of Congressional representation is a function of local population densities." I knew that the representative to population ratio had been shrinking, but I didn't know they had since set a fixed limit.
I can't tell if you're joking or seriously advocating a pure democracy. A pure democracy is nice in theory, but it's effectively mob/majority rule. It is also a considerable burden to write, read, and vote on every piece of legislation. A representative democracy mitigates those issues by appointing a single person to represent the wishes of his or her constituents. This also slows down the progress of democracy by forcing voters to wait until they can elect a new representative. But is that a bad thing? The waiting is effectively what prevents the mob rule syndrome.
Then again, it would be difficult to bribe >50% of the population to pass a bill.
Wasn't really joking or advocating it. Just a thought experiment on the thread we were on. I suppose the answer would have to wait a few hundred years after we initiated the experiment to see where it goes off the rails.
Another variable, you mention, is term of office. If voters only "remember 6 months back" then would having elections every 6 months instead of 2 years help?
