This is a question of no small importance, as the individual you elect will be receiving a princely salary for doing ... as far as I can tell ... absolutely nothing of consequence except naming post offices and complaining about the shortcomings of the other party. It's a question not applicable in many of the stupendously gerrymandered-to-be-GOP-until-the-sun-goes-nova Congressional districts that will never elect anyone that doesn't make Atilla the Hun look like a flaming liberal, but in the less hidebound parts of the nation, it deserves serious consideration.
For one thing, do you have to elect a person?
In 1997, The Onion published a satirical article titled "Texans Elect Gun," which reported that Texas voters had elected a .44 caliber revolver to the Senate on the strength of its "tremendous stopping power* ... deep nickel plating, the smooth action of its finely machined cylinder, and the crisp, positive pull of its trigger," and that it "took an impressive 71 percent of the women's vote by prominently displaying its elegant pearl grips and well-tooled leather holster throughout the campaign."
I can foresee Colorado residents electing a bale of marijuana.
Any other suggestions out there for other nontraditional Congressional representation? Leave a comment. You can't do much worse that what we've got already.
Have a good day. More thoughts coming.
* Tremendous stopping power would be very useful in Congress, where conservatives tend to stop everything from happening, anyhow.
** Always a dangerous thing.