We are coming to the different interpretations of the same Wiki article. But rather than get into fruitless debate here, I will take our discussion in another direction.

My provincial constituency has about 40,000 citizens. I have had never been in the same room with my elected representative. I have no idea in how she would conduct herself in a decision-making body. I know she is highly partisan, so I suspect she would ignore or deflect any commentary that is not part of her party's agenda.

My federal constituency has 100,000 citizens. I do have a little experience with my elected representative. His wife was my boss, and she was a reasonable manager. I have been in the same room with him quite a few times. But I have not served in a decision-making body with him. When he was in municipal politics, he was well regarded a reasonable person. Now that he has turned from independent to partisan, I suspect he too would ignore or deflect commentary that is not part of his party's agenda.

So which is better? 40,000 or 100,000 citizens per elected representative? Why?

In 1992, I got my eureka for my TDG. As I churning through his new way, I somehow settled on 200 citizens per electoral district. I thought this would be a number where citizens can vote actually knowing something about the "candidates" and could actually cast a wise vote.

Then 10 years later, I came across the Dunbar number--and found them to be of similar values.

You may not believe there is any relevance here, but I do. Whether I just got lucky or I somehow understood the nature of Dunbar's number is another mystery we may never solve.

We need to know more about the people we are voting for--and western democracy cannot provide the knowledge for us to vote wisely. Western democracy has such large electoral districts where the candidate's good and bad points are hidden by the party banner.

The large electoral districts are for the benefit of the party, not the people.