As a fun by-product you would completely eliminate the effect of large donors on the government. Lets see the Koch brothers or George Soros donate $1 Million dollars to ~1600 Congressmen every two years.
Once per period, all of Archie's constituents are surveyed to determine if they still like what he's doing. They can change registration at any time, but this is the most convenient time to do it.
If Archie drops below 1M at any time, he goes back to one vote. If he drops below 500K at a survey point, he's no longer a Representative.
So i realise why I like aspects of your proposal. Because it has a few of the principles of the Mixed-Member proportional  System mixed into it. I like MMP I really like it. I think that combined with a radical expansion of the number of representatives ( I think we should be closer to 100k then 500k, maybe as low as 50k ) would allow us to do many amazing things as a country. Also I would toss this wrinkle in. MMP is done at a state level and only state level political parties are recognized, and they are now official. They must follow rules to elect their leadership.
I think the right solution would be to allow the public to overturn laws. Let the House and Senate do their jobs, but enable an electronic voting system by which the public can automatically overturn any law that enough of the public feels is wrong at any time. This is a more balanced approach, and would also curtail the divisiveness that we see in our political system. The public wouldn't spend the time in between elections either pouting about or praising the results of the last election. Instead they could put their energy toward helping us craft a better country regardless of who is in office.
We already have governmental overhead of 1 person on public payroll for every 6 people. I figure you could easily have 1 direct representative per 1,000 people if you change the system to an elector tree like the old US Senate rather than direct voting for too many positions.
Also, +1 for username 😉
I mentioned this. The senators are still one of the largest divergent points from public interests that are direct elected. I'm all for abolishing the 17th amendment amongst other things (I disagree with the policy of 2 senators per state in principle anyway).
> No state senator would pass such mandates laws and vote to limit their state governments if the senators had to answer to and were elected by the state legislatures. Each state can elect their senators as they see fit.
I wish we could have unified state congresses that directly elected all federal representatives from within their own ranks. The citizenry shouldn't even be involved in the fed, which shouldn't be nearly as large as it is. They should be involved locally, and their local choices should influence larger groups through representation. The way republics are supposed to work.
Granted, your proposal does address a lot of things, but this is something that would need to be addressed. Thoughts?
I think that's more than a tad optimistic. If you quadruple the number of seats you also shrink the size of each district. With smaller districts the costs of campaigning would likely shrink, as would the amount each individual Congressman would need to raise.