Authority by the numbers

Gerald Celente, of https://trendsresearch.com/ frequently refers to the Federal legislative branch of the united states as "the gang of 535." The name is derived from the total members of both the house and the senate, and is often partnered with the notion they might not be qualified to tell the rest of America what to do..
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States#Legislative_branch)
The Idea inspired me to put together a few statistics somebody could share, as the basis for a later video i hope to put together. My opinions I shall attempt to save for the end of the article.
We start with Celente's 535 number. these 535 are "bestowed" their powers by the votes of what appears to be just over 200 million eligible voters, and as many as 14 million "fraudulent" votes. in order to prevent this article from overflowing with links and sources, I am going to stick with the most conservative estimates in my examples for how many people vote in any given election. An element of "thought experiment" if you will.. There are a lot of significant challenges for anyone trying to get an accurate number for how many people have voted in any election... but once again, for the sake of this particular article we are going to use the Presidential reality show numbers, which are in most cases the best turnout of voters.
These 535 Legislators are selected by 125 million people, and currently the United States and its territories have a population greater than 325 million people. with many more millions affected each and every day by the rulings, decisions, and laws of our federal government.
Including the president, only 536 people are actually elected by a vote of the American people. Beyond elected federal officials, a sea of bureaucracies exist, with almost limitless power, UNELECTED by the people they have a perceived authority to rule over. Agencies created by executive order like the NSA, or corporations chartered into existence by law like the CIA, which have life-long employees,and are not elected by the people, with almost no oversight... and many special privileges.
These people have the power to put you in PRISON for lying to them, and their word is worth more than us lowly peasants in the courts or on documents. Based solely on previous federal employment, they receive unique job offers, pensions, and of course, access to information and documents that others, can not be trusted to see...
My apologies, as my editorial bias seems to be showing..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-916-false-statements-federal-investigator

Before I continue with our thought experiment, I want to examine one more region of the world, which I believe to be a more dramatic example..
India is the 2nd most populous governing territory in the world, and though not as large as the U.S.A. it is a MASSIVE country by area. Its 1,200,000,000 or so people elect a federal governing body made up of essentially 800 people... and even less of a say over who these people actually are than here in my home country, the United States...
if you want to know more about how I reached these generalizations on India you can start below..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India#Government

These generalizations made above are necessary to the reduced length of the article. But dear reader, once this point has been made please be sure to read up on these things further, educate yourself and others as to how we got to this point. but here is a quick recap, with rounded numbers:
U.S. Population: 325 Million
U.S. Jurisdictional population (VERY rough estimate):400 million
Lawmakers ruling this Jurisdiction: 535+1 president+9 court
Approximate ratio of rulers to subjects: 400,000,000 to 545, OR 733,945 to 1

India's ratio using population, and not jurisdiction, is 1 ruler for every 1.5 MILLION Indian citizens. How do these people BENIFIT from having so few, rule over so many..

This is not about India, the U.S. or any other government in particular.. this is a question of responsibility, freedom, and efficiency. Or maybe I should say that is what THIS article is about.

I question the wisdom of so few making decisions for so many. In my own life experience, people making their own decisions is by its very nature, more informed in the great majority of cases.. also my own life experiences reveal that power has a corrupting effect on those who wield it.

but is there evidence supporting this concentration of power benefiting the people? How about to the contrary? How would we even test such a thing?

Back to our thought experiment.. Last election for president of the united states (POTUS) as many as 70% of "eligible" voters turned out to vote. This is one of the best voter turnouts in modern American history. this percentage was probably less by the way, and at least 7 million of them were Fraudulant by Americas own Eligibilty standards (dead people, illigal aliens, voter fraud, fellons, rigging machines, ghost ballots)
https://www.infowars.com/trump-was-right-new-study-reveals-up-to-5-7-million-illegals-voted-in-election/
AND definitions article:
https://www.justfacts.com/immigration.asp

Plug it all in, and you get something like this: 140 million voters cast their votes for either president, or a senator/congressmen, or both... Majority winner "represents" the people.. allowing this one person to authoritatively make decrees over nearly 400 MILLION PEOPLE in some capacity, either as legislator or POTUS.. and these senate members are even more disproportionate. 40% voter turnout in mid-term senate races, meaning that out of the whole 400 million people being ruled in this republic, the Senate as an example was elected by less than 100 million votes, and many of those votes are indeed, A DIFFERENT person than the one claiming to now represent those very same people..
My two final examples, you as a person in California have no legal say over the 98 other people in the senate, only the 2 from your state.. Of the 40 million or so people in California, 7,542,000ish people voted for Senator Kamala Harris. and another 4.7 Million or so voted for Loretta Sanchez, also a democrat, and a waaaaayyyyy smaller number voted for somebody else.. this was amazing turnout for a senate race in California by the way.. What this means dear reader, is Sen. Harris has incredible power over the lives of 400 MILLION HUMAN BEINGS because of the votes of LESS THAN 3 million people.
And here is my favorite example, below is a quote from senate.gov
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Closest_election_in_Senate_history.htm
"Now, it was Wyman’s turn to demand a recount. The state ballot commission tabulated the ballots in dispute and ruled that Republican Wyman had won—but by just two votes. The governor cancelled Durkin’s certificate and awarded a new credential to Wyman."
This is referencing a senate race in the mid 70's recorded as the closest senate race in history.
on closer inspection of this anomaly of history, the deviation between recounts was 200 times larger than the actual victory. Of 2000 ballots examined, 35 were fraudulent... Not out of the ordinary in any election...
and still the results are accepted based on 2 votes. 2 people would decide on a senator representing the entire united states..

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Realize dear reader that EVERY ONE of these elected officials, no matter how much they may not look it, are human beings just like you and I... I think...
and yet they are tasked with the power to regulate nearly every detail of our lives... millions and millions of us. they are JUST PEOPLE!!!
I have already included way more links than this article was intended to carry, but below is a very interesting way to look at this issue...
http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/21861
in the article you learn about Madison's idea to grow the amount of representation, in proportion to the number of those governed, in order to keep government close to the will of the people.
I am not trying to make a political or scientific statement, I am trying to highlight a philosophic question that I believe is more important than ever.
Is it reasonable, or is it, as I suspect, irrational, to concentrate power and influence through coercive and violent institution like the federal government? Are the people benefiting in some way, by restricting their freedoms to decide for themselves, and instead put those decisions in Washington D.C?
Would it be wise for us to make government smaller, more local, and less powerful?
This article is going to be the basis for a series of articles examining these questions.