In the constitution, the duty of assigning the number of representatives is granted to Congress. The constitution states "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative."
A proposed amendment included in the original package of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights capped the number of individuals one representative could represent at 50,000.
The last time a full apportionment including increasing sets raised the number of members of the House of Representatives at 433. This was in 1911, and we have only increased the number to 435 by adding the states of Hawaii and Alaska. When the permanent apportionment act was passed in 1929, the US population was approximately 121,767,000. US population is expected to shortly climb to above 330 million individuals. At that time, it meant each representative represented about 281,000 people. Now each representative in the House represents over 758,000 individuals. Is it no surprise that members of Congress are often very out of touch with the individuals they represent?
Additionally, smaller states are overrepresented while larger states are underrepresented. The Electoral College, which is based partly on the number of congressional representatives, is skewed by the current imbalance. This contributes to the perception that votes in some states carry more weight than in others, undermining the principle of equal representation.
Worldwide Legislative Size
How does this stack up to the rest of the world, though? We are the worst in the world for representation. The next worst is Japan at one representative per 272,000. The graphic below from Vox shows clearly why the US house desperately needs to be expanded to increase our nation's democracy. If the US had the same proportions as Japan we would have 1223 representatives.
Congress this year had the ability to increase this number to make us more representative, but once again we have pushed off a desperate need. One proposal referred to as the "Wyoming rule" would make the smallest state by population, Wyoming, as the basis for the smallest district possible. This would increase the size of the US House of Representatives to 573, or one representative per 575,000 individuals. This more modest proposal would help to fix the many issues, but we need to do more to uncap the house and make our democracy more representative of our nation, and more accessible to individuals.
What about the House chambers? They couldn't handle that number of Representatives, right? Well, rarely are all members of the house in the chambers, but the capitol was specifically designed by George Washington with it's large dome with the intent that it would expand as needed. Temporarily, new members could be in the gallery if needed for the State of the Union and other major speeches. Other accommodations such as secured distance voting could also be allowed.
The Benefits of Expanding the House
Restoring Proportional Representation
Increasing the number of seats would better align representation with population growth. A larger House would ensure that representatives are more directly accountable to their constituents and can advocate more effectively for their specific needs.
Improving Electoral Fairness
A bigger House would also lead to a fairer Electoral College. By redistributing electoral votes more equitably, presidential elections would more accurately reflect the will of the people.
Enhancing Diversity
A larger House would allow for a broader range of voices in government. More seats mean greater opportunities for candidates from underrepresented communities, leading to a Congress that better reflects the racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity of the U.S. population.
Reducing the Influence of Big Money in Politics
With smaller districts, the cost of running for office would decrease. Candidates could rely less on large donations and Super PACs, making elections more accessible to grassroots campaigns and ordinary citizens rather than corporate-backed candidates.
