Looking over the numbers, I find 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 1
independent in the Senate. In the House it's 229, 205 and (again) 1. If this is indeed supposed to be a "representative" government, then that says that less than 0.4% of the nation is not either Republican or Democrat. That, of course, is a ludicrous idea. The Libertarians alone represent more than that.
The point is, of course, that our congresscriters represent not the population, but areas or regions of the country. The Senators represent, jointly, their State. Each Representative represents his district (which is, for reasons that no longer apply, bounded by state lines.
To a very real extent, many people are pretty well disfranchised. Since they are not the majority in any one district, their voice then counts for nothing. They have no representation at any level, even though some of these group are far larger than, say, the population of Wyoming (which does
have one Representative).
While the original intent (i.e., the United States being a union of independent countries) justified the structure of the House and the Senate that intent died in 1865. The States are "states" in name only. They are little more than provinces of one federal country. And the concept of the Senators representing the states and the Representatives the people fell along the wayside long ago. The actual situation is that both the Senate and the House represent people by geographic location. While that may be desirable for one chamber, having it thus for two is redundant. In the spirit that the USA is now one nation, a better way to handle the House might be to let as many people from all around the country stand for office as desire. Those 435 that have the most votes get in, regardless of where they are from. That way, each of those 435 will have a constituency all
of which they speak for, rather than (as is often the case) one for which they only represent a bare majority (or not even that in some cases).
Just food for thought