Number of reps would increase, certainly, but not necessarily the size of government as far as expense. Salaries and stipends should be apportioned proportionately, so no extra expense. Not sure exactly what event you are talking about making rules around as all issues regarding fractional representation would come to a natural equilibrium.
Unfortunately that just doesn't make sense on a mathematical level.
To give you a basic example: let's say you have 100 Representatives in a chamber and the salary for a Representative is $100,000 p/a. So your total salary budget is 10,000,000 for the year.
If you keep your salary budget for Reps at 10,000,000 per annum and then you double the number of Representatives, you're essentially paying each of them half the salary.
Your proposal would see much, much more than a doubling of Representatives.
So, in the end, you could find that there are many Representatives who are earning virtually nothing (or indeed - literally nothing).
Apportioning salary on a proportional level could be very dangerous and could lead to enormous social inequity. If you have one district that has a higher-paid Representative, then that district may be therefore attracting higher-quality candidates who can better serve their constituents. Those areas where the pay rate is a lot lower are not as likely to attract quality Representatives.
In other words, you create a highly skewed marketplace where voters are competing (against each other) for higher quality Representatives. You actually potentially reduce competition from the perspective of the Reps themselves, at least as compared to what happens now.
This doesn't even begin to consider the logistical nightmares. In each election, salaries and numbers of Representatives could change radically. Unless you clearly define the proportional boundaries at the beginning, this will be inevitable. And, clearly defining the proportional boundaries contradicts your original premise.
If someone chooses to run on the "I represent Evergreen Terrace first and foremost" platform no special authority over Evergreen Terrace is created for them, they just aren't going to have broad appeal in the district nor vote power in congress. Most likely the suburb rep would get a lot more votes, and have proportionately more power.
You confirmed my earlier point - you're saying that no special authority is created for them over Evergreen Terrace, but the suburb Representative would likely have votes and thus, proportionally more power. And so, in this scenario, the Representative for the district has de facto more power than the Representative for the suburb. Thus, the suburb Representative becomes useless in practice as a voting member of the Congress - what they become is, in effect, a lobbyist to the district Representative.
In effect, additional administrative layers are created by this kind of system - ineffective layers that reduce political effectiveness.
I do not think that technological limitations are good reasons if those limitations no longer exist.
I agree that technology can be used to reduce barriers and improve efficiency (and effectiveness).
However - I can say from experience working in large companies (where teleconferences are a regular occurrence) - teleconferencing is a neat tool, but it has numerous drawbacks that hamper effectiveness. In fact, numerous organisations I've worked for will often deliberately avoid teleconferencing and arrange face-to-face meetings for particular engagements because teleconferencing can act as a major barrier to effective discussion and decision making.
Anyone who has ever been in management will tell you that having a teleconference - even with a dozen people - (and especially when trying to make important calls on issues or have debates/discussions) can be a nightmare.
Trying to scale this up to a Congressional level poses enormous problems and risks. Also, Congress relies heavily on committee structures, which take some of the detail off the floor of the House/Senate and which allow more thought-out discussion. These sessions really need to be face-to-face for numerous reasons (even in terms of seeing the facial expressions of a witness!)
Sure, you could do video conferencing for some of that work (I don't object to this at all), but outright replacing the physical Congress with a "virtual Congress" isn't very sensible I think.
With respect to the feasibility of keeping track of thousands of representatives and their voting power the Wall Street example is apt.
So, it's apt in terms of counting votes - yes. And Congress already does this anyway (that is, votes are all recorded on an electronic system and tallied automatically).
As far as deciding on policy, we could also ask how many wall street businesses conduct meetings by telepresence. We could ask if there are successful businesses that regularly make policy decisions based on telepresence meetings? I don't know offhand, but a quick google for telepresence suggests that there is a big market for telepresence tech, so I'm guessing it does occur.
Absolutely - I attempted to give some insight into this in my earlier comment in this post.
Telepresence technology is indeed in high demand, and it's a vital part of doing business in a global environment.
However, it doesn't replace face-to-face contact, especially for important decision-making, policy development, and debate. I would say that it compliments these things, rather than replacing them.
Also, as a general rule, telepresence solutions tend to be useful only with smaller groups (as in, a handful of people). Scaling that up to dozens, hundreds, or more presents enormous barriers.