Really?
Obviously more people makes it harder, it’s harder to bribe enough in congress to make a law pass. First it’s more expensive, second more people need to be on the take, and it will be harder to keep secret.
No, that’s not obvious at all. If that were true, you’d expect a correlation between corruption and the size of parliaments/city councils/etc. and to my knowledge no such correlation exists.
Besides, there is no need to keep things secret when there are plenty of legal pathways to (what elsewhere might be considered) bribery, as is currently the case in the USA.
How exactly?
Really?
Obviously more people makes it harder, it’s harder to bribe enough in congress to make a law pass. First it’s more expensive, second more people need to be on the take, and it will be harder to keep secret.
Since in a smaller district, it’d cost less to get elected, a smaller bribe might also suffice to own a legislator.
It’s certainly the case that state legislators are cheaper to bribe than federal ones, probably for that same reason.
No, that’s not obvious at all. If that were true, you’d expect a correlation between corruption and the size of parliaments/city councils/etc. and to my knowledge no such correlation exists.
Besides, there is no need to keep things secret when there are plenty of legal pathways to (what elsewhere might be considered) bribery, as is currently the case in the USA.
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
Not an argument - a request for you to substantiate that claim.
I already did with "First it’s more expensive, second more people need to be on the take, "
These are facts, and facts beat ignorance.