Fixing the House of Representatives in One Easy, Radical Step

In a political landscape plagued by gerrymandering, entrenched incumbents, and the overwhelming influence of outside money, a radical proposal has emerged: increasing the number of seats in the House of Representatives from 435 to 930. This isn’t just a whimsical idea; it’s a response to the growing disparity in representation among states and the stagnation in electoral competitiveness. Let’s dive into why expanding the House could be a game-changer for American democracy.

First, let’s talk numbers. The House of Representatives has been capped at 435 seats since 1929. Back then, this seemed a reasonable figure for a population that was barely one-third of today’s count. Fast forward to 2024, and the U.S. is bursting at the seams with over 330 million people. Our population’s growth hasn’t been matched by an increase in representation, leading to significant disparities. Some states have representatives catering to over 700,000 people, while others represent fewer than 500,000. That’s like expecting a single teacher to manage a classroom of 50 students while another handles just 20. It’s no wonder there are issues.

One of the main benefits of boosting the number of seats to 930 is addressing this representation disparity. With more seats, the ratio of representatives to constituents would improve, ensuring that each American’s voice carries more weight. As the article outlines, the ideal number of seats has been calculated, and 930 appears to be the magic number. It’s not just about making everyone feel heard; it’s about injecting fairness back into the system.

Then there’s the matter of gerrymandering—a word that’s become synonymous with political manipulation. Gerrymandering involves redrawing district boundaries to favor one party over another, effectively allowing politicians to choose their voters instead of the other way around. By increasing the number of seats, districts would naturally become smaller and more numerous, making it significantly harder to gerrymander effectively. It’s a bit like trying to solve a complex puzzle: the more pieces there are, the trickier it becomes to manipulate the picture.

Another compelling argument for expanding the House is the potential for increased electoral competitiveness. It’s no secret that many House races have become predictable snooze-fests with incumbents almost guaranteed re-election, thanks largely to their name recognition and hefty campaign war chests. More seats could level the playing field, lowering barriers to entry for new candidates. Picture this: a Congress bustling with fresh faces and new ideas, rather than the same old lineup election after election. It’s not just a pipe dream; it’s a necessary shake-up.

A larger House also promises a more diverse and dynamic Congress. Currently, the limited number of seats means that only certain perspectives—often those of the wealthy and well-connected—get a platform. With 930 seats, we could see a broader range of backgrounds and viewpoints represented. Whether it’s small business owners, teachers, or healthcare workers, the expanded House would allow for a richer tapestry of American life to be woven into the legislative process.

Historically, the apportionment of representatives has always been a tricky business, but it’s rooted in the principle of fair representation. The Founding Fathers envisioned a House that would grow with the population to ensure that every American had an equal say in their government. Somewhere along the line, we lost sight of that vision. Increasing the number of seats would be a step towards honoring that original intent.

Of course, implementing such a change wouldn’t be without its challenges. Critics argue that a larger House could lead to logistical nightmares and inefficiency. But let’s face it—our current system isn’t exactly the epitome of smooth operation. The potential benefits of improved representation, reduced gerrymandering, and increased competitiveness far outweigh the downsides.

The proposal to expand the House of Representatives to 930 seats offers a promising solution to some of the most pressing issues in American politics today. It’s a bold move, but one that could restore much-needed balance and vibrancy to our democracy. By evening out the representation disparity, curbing the manipulative power of gerrymandering, and injecting fresh competition into elections, we could pave the way for a more equitable and dynamic future for all Americans. It’s time to consider if bigger really is better when it comes to the people’s House.

Sources: Christ Wilson/Yahoo
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What they need to do is take all the demonrats and rinos and march them straight to the gallows for treason. That would fix thing in short order.

Lucy Skywalker

I get paid more than $120 to $130 every hour for working on the web. I found out about this activity 3 months prior and subsequent to joining this I have earned effectively $15k from this without having internet working abilities. Copy underneath site to

check it…………………………………….

Last edited 29 days ago by Lucy Skywalker
Hat Bailey

True, but even more unlikely than even modest reforms at this point.

Less Gov't

Interesting – how many more tax $ would be spent annually to accomplish this? How many more permanent election campaigns? Perhaps another idea – extend House to 6-year terms with single term term limits, combined with no special benefits (retirement pay, health care, etc) returning this role to a service role, not a career…

Karolina Ken

I believe in term limits for both the House and the Senate. No more career power grabers.


There are too many representatives now and they cant or wont do the job for our citizens. No more for sure!

The Rebel

Why do truthful comments have to wait for approval from the communist monitors??


And if there really are monitors, how does posts like the one from Lucy Skywalker get approved.

Barry Lynn Hamp

Not sure I like the idea but I do like the idea of a potentially closer relationship between the rep and the people he/she represents. And to make it even closer, I think each area should be responsible for the salary, benefits, etc for their elected representative INCLUDING control of the purse strings. Sounds like an accountability structure like nothing to date.

Hat Bailey

Now there is real reform, which is why it won’t happen without a real revolution of some kind which also seems sadly unlikely.