So who are the 144 members of the House of Representatives, all Republican, who voted earlier this week to continue the federal government shut down and cause the United States of America to default on its obligations? And who elected them to office?

I live in a blue state. I am a Fellow in a progressive think tank (as well as being an investment banker, versed in the ways of Wall Street). I travel in the “Acela Corridor” between New York and Washington, where most folks think in a fairly similar political context.

When I get off in Union Station and walk up to Capitol Hill, I meet with many congressman and senators from time to time on business and political matters. I may be a Democrat, but I have great respect and admiration for many on the Republican side of the aisle (especially in the Senate) and find them to be thoughtful and responsible leaders.

Not so with the 144 naysayers.

Truth is, I don’t know many of their lot. Paul Ryan, the former Republican candidate for Vice President is among them. Other names I recognize as being among those I see on television from time to time (one of them, Rep, Brady of Texas I even debated myself on Bloomberg television only days before the government shut down). But for the most part – as I imagine is the case for many in my region of the country – I don’t know the rest of them from Adam. I am, I imagine, not likely to in the future.

So I got curious, where are the 144 from and who elected them to office. Here are the facts:

It is not news that an overwhelming number of the naysayers are from the South. The Daily Kos published a piece on Friday , showing that over 56% of them are from the southern states, with the Midwest accounting for over 24%. Only 28 of the no votes came from the West and Northeast.

West: 20

Midwest: 35

Northeast: 8

South: 81

The 144 no-voting congressmen were elected (in 2012) by just under 25.5 million U.S. voters .

Those who elected this the 144 naysayers equal approximately 11.1% of all eligible voters in the U.S . and about 18.5% of all those who actually voted in the last congressional election.

The 144 represent lopsided districts (heavily Republican) and were elected by an average of 63.4% of those voting in their constituencies. A handful of them ran unopposed in their last election, or nearly so.

Now, I am sure that many of the 144 are relatively conscientious public servants who don’t deserve characterization as terrorists who hijacked the U.S. government and who nearly succeeded at kicking the federal government into deadbeat status. And I believe that some of those who voted no might not have done so if it was not clear that the bill passed in the house had sufficient republican votes to pass. Last minute vote changes seemed to indicate that several members voted no for political expediency, not wishing to encounter a more right-wing challenger in 2014.

But the fact remains that when the House leadership freed Republicans to vote their conscience, a sizable hard core voted emphatically for what is essentially anarchy – a closed government that would not be able to pay its bills.

That these members were elected by a small minority of voters and yet were able to wreak legislative havoc and demand the backing of their party’s leadership for even the few weeks of this latest crisis, is not just a matter of constitutional and legislative procedure. Rather, it is a failure of their party’s leadership in enabling a tyrannical rule by minority.

Thomas Jefferson, to a not-insignificant extent the father of the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian anti- government claque who begot (biblically and spiritually) a large number of the 25.5 million voters who gave us the 144 naysayers, somewhat ironically warned against the need to avoid a “tyranny of the majority” in his first inaugural address, saying “Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable;...the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

The will of the minority, to be rightful, to be worthy of any respect at all, must also be reasonable. The majority must be protected from oppression by the opposite. That is the lesson that needs to be branded on the collective conscience of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives.