> Have you seen Star Wars: The Phantom Menace?

I have not seen that movie. Heard it wasn't that good. I'm happy to hear about the relevant parts, if you want to describe them.

> Are you going to have Congress hold sessions in a football stadium or something?

I'd be ok with that. Not afraid to try something different. It used to be 1 federal representative per 30,000 people, communicating via horse-back. We've regressed to 1 representative per 500,000+ people, even though we now have instant communication. I don't see what the big deal is about counting more congressional votes.

I realize this would be a drastic change for those currently in power, those with money might not be able to afford to bribe so many more congress people, or so many more state representatives if we had more states.

Ideally a national congress so large, ruling over so many people, would not be running the entire country in minute detail, just coordinating on issues that need to be collectively dealt with, and where there is collective agreement.

> And what kind of counties are you talking about anyway?

Swiss cantons vary in size, like U.S. counties. The smallest canton in Switzerland has something like 20,000 people. The largest is home to Geneva. 26 cantons, about 8.5 million people total. I brought Swiss cantons up as a demonstration that smaller groups of people can run things for themselves just fine, doing more than U.S. states. They subdivide cantons into municipalities that function much like U.S. city/town governments.

> At the national level? There is no example of this working anywhere, worldwide, for a sizeable country.

Why do countries need to be sizeable? What would be wrong with smaller groups of people governing themselves and organizing into federations when they want or need to? What is sacred and desirable about the idea of large countries?

There's seems to a be a trend of wanting to consolidate into larger political units. I don't know that this serves the interest of the people. Sometimes it seems this is just a way to impose one-size-fits-all solutions across ever larger and more disparate groups of people.

> There's real-world limits to how large political divisions can be before they need to be grouped together into larger groups, which themselves have representatives in a larger body.

I agree that it is harder to get larger groups of people to agree. I don't know that the best answer is to force people into larger political units. That doesn't make disagreements go away.

There's a line of thinking that larger and larger political units are actually harmful, that they ultimately lead to authoritarianism and bullying behaviour, towards their own populations and others, and that the solution is to split into much smaller political units [0].

Countries that become too big become evil. History is full of such examples. The U.S., Russia, China, Japan, Germany, and the U.K have all taken advantage of their size and power to do things that are harmful to others, and those are just the largest examples over the last 100 years. Adolf Hitler as the ruler of Bavaria would not have been able to command forces that could kill millions of people, but Adolf Hitler the leader of Germany did. What benefit are larger states and countries, besides concentrating more power in one place, power that is so often misused?

Name me a sizeable country that has not suppressed large segments of its own population and other less powerful countries. Large political structures come with a lot of their own problems.

I realize this is a big topic, I tried above to present more detail behind what I was thinking. I'm not sure why you think it is wrong or a problem to have smaller political units that better represent people.

[0] Leopold Khor wrote about this, "The Breakdown of Nations", here's a good youtube summary, about 10 minutes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaszpQaNwAU