In part 1, we learned that our elected representatives represented many more people than they did in the past.  In part 6, we read a compelling assertion that our country was in decline, followed by the possibility of reversing that decline through greater public participation in governance.  The need for greater public participation in governance was demonstrated by the argument in part 7 about the dilution of the present-day vote.  

The problems arising from an “overpopulation” of constituents starts not when an elected representative takes her oath of office, but, rather, when she registers as a candidate for office.  

The same problem facing an elected representative, namely, that he cannot talk in person to all his constituents in a reasonable time, faces a candidate, who cannot communicate his message in person to all voters in a reasonable time.  

Thus, the wonders of modern communication come to the rescue, and each of these wonders costs money:  television announcements, radio announcements, mailers, signs, refrigerator magnets, potholders, phone calls. 

Except for wealthy candidates who can and do draw upon their own funds, how do others running for office fund their election campaigns?  They have to ask others for money, and that dilutes the impact of your and my votes.   After a campaign, the donors have appreciation, if not dedication, from elected representatives whom they, the donors, have supported.  

As the overpopulation of constituents increases, so does the need for money and the dependence by candidates on donors to supply that money.  

We Americans have painted ourselves into a corner with our interpretation of the First Amendment specifically and of democracy generally.  Is there any way out without raising constitutional issues?  If we think outside the box, perhaps.  We will explore that in the next part.