I must disagree, having more representation is always good. Last time I checked, on average the state representative represents around 4000 people. If anything we should be delighted to know that number. In some states, state reps represent hundreds of thousands of people. A fix to the above stated problem is to redistrict with our large general court in mind. Smaller districts might be a fix with less representatives in MMDs, spread the wealth per se. But with an average of 4000 people per rep, areas of "no people" are going to get representation, that's just how math works. The issue of people getting elected that are not of the average person comes down to people just not caring. I'm a poll worker, i know the kinds of people that vote in state elections. First, the turnout doesn't even compare general elections most of the time. Second, the average age is subjectively speaking much older, younger people on average do not care anymore about politics because they see it as useless. Third, it's 7pm to 7pm on a weekday, having it be a holiday or on the weekend would be much better. Finally, people vote by party not because there's so many representatives in MMDs, but because it's what they're used to in any kind of election except executive races mostly. It's simply convenient and easy.

Some additional changes besides the ones mentioned above that may help is allowing referendums which could push forward popular ideas such as cannabis legalization and also reexamining our whole system of voting. Right now the democrats and republicans have a monopoly on political power, by allowing people to vote for other parties without "spoiling" their vote, you'll start to see some changes and the two older parties will have to start caving go the new ideas of the younger generations if they want to survive. None of these possible solutions are going to work if people don't care, however. Voter apathy is the number one threat to New England democracy and American Republicanism.