THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Acknowledgements

Democracy and the Constitution Clinic Fordham University School of Law Caroline Kane, Gianni Mascioli, Michael McGarry, Meira Nagel January 2020 This report was researched and written during the 2018-2019 academic year by students in Fordham Law School’s Democracy and the Constitution Clinic, which is focused on developing non-partisan recommendations to strengthen the nation’s institutions and its democracy. The clinic is supervised by John D. Feerick and John Rogan. Acknowledgments: We would like to express our gratitude to the esteemed experts who generously took time to share their knowledge and views with us: Kevin Baas, John O. Brennan, Jerry H. Goldfeder, Derek Hackett, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Dr. Norman Ornstein, Representative Jamie Raskin, Representative Thomas Suozzi, and Jesse Wegman. This report greatly benefited from Gail McDonald’s research guidance and Erandi Trevino’s editing assistance. Judith Rew and Robert Yasharian designed the report.

Executive Summary

The House of Representatives is not functioning how the Constitution’s framers intended. To ensure that the body provides fair and democratic representation, the size of the House must expand and a new approach should be used for drawing congressional districts. Other than setting a minimum of at least 65 representatives and requiring that each state have at least one, the Constitution does not specify a size for the House. But the framers intended for the size to increase alongside the country’s population, which essentially happened until 1910. In 1910, Congress approved a reapportionment of House seats and an increase in the size of the House to 433. The membership was further increased to 435 in 1912 to accommodate the entry of Arizona and New Mexico as states. However, Congress was unable to pass legislation reapportioning the House in 1920. Congress finally passed new legislation in 1929, but it froze the size of the House at 435. That number, however, was an arbitrary cap. In the interest of political expediency, those members who voted for the limit forced their successors to represent two to three times as many constituents as they themselves represented. The cap of 435 members still exists today, and it creates a host of problems for our representative democracy. An expansion of the House is important for several reasons. 

First, each member of the House represents - on average - about 750,000 constituents. In 2050, it is projected that each member of Congress will represent a million or more people. Everything a congressperson does will become even more challenging. Some responsibilities might be entirely neglected. Americans who depend on their representatives for help will be one of a million. 

Second, the 435-member cap creates unequal representation among districts. That district sizes vary so greatly throughout the country is problematic—the quality of representation Americans receive in the House should not depend on the district in which they reside. This disparity extends to presidential elections because the number of electors that each state receives in the Electoral College is the total of its representation in the House and Senate. 

Third, increasing the size of the House may, in fact, help to fix the issue of partisan gerrymandering. The more districts there are, the harder it becomes to gerrymander effectively. Increasing the size of the House means more accountability, better representation, and increased diversity in Congress. 

How many seats should be added to the House? Research has shown that throughout the democracies of world that the best size for a democratic representative body is the cube root of the population. Using the Cube Root Rule to determine the size of a country’s legislature is the cube root of the country’s population. This means the number of House seats would be the cube root of the U.S. population, (I do not reduce by the 100 they suggest because that is the size of the senate and I will deal with that later.). Based on the 2020 census, this approach would add 258 seats to the House (and decrease the average constituency size to around 478,000 people). Adhering to the Cube Root Rule would put the U.S. in good company with many other democratic nations. Importantly, the Cube Root Rule should be implemented as a permanent formula to determine House seats so Congress would not need to pass a new law every time the population significantly changes. The Cube Root Rule simply responds to population changes—as the U.S. population increases or decreases, so can the size of Congress. 

To draw districts following the House expansion, a plan can be implemented using a federal set of rules that must be followed so that all Americans are represented proportionally within each state. Given what we have seen in recent years, the Federal Congressional district boundaries can no longer be left to the individual states, since states attempt to redraw federal districts for control of the House of Representatives. This is totally undemocratic This is the cat in the hen house. The Government does not control We, the American People, but We, the American People control the government. Leaving the drawing of boundaries to individual states politicians causes each state to unduly influence all of the American people in the remaining states. We need a national standard.

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense promoted Republican ideals calling for a Democratic Republic. It proposed forming a representative democracy where the common people would have the power to govern themselves, as opposed to a system that favored monarchy and aristocracy. Paine’s vision was for a government that derived its authority from the consent of the governed.

The debate around whether or not to expand the House dates back to the inception of the House itself as the Founding Fathers intended for the chamber to be elected by and representative of the people.

Current district sizes threaten the direct constituent connection on which the House was founded. This growing imbalance makes it more difficult for members to be responsive to the will of the people, and voters are more likely to sit out elections when their voice and input are not fully represented in government.

A report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an independent research center, found that the lack of growth has resulted in “serious and harmful consequences for both representatives and the voting public.” For example, the report found, “the connection between constituents and their congresspeople has attenuated, leading to worse representation and bolstering the feeling among voters that their voice does not matter.”

My goal in this section is to help readers understand the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a significant reform.

The United States House of Representatives became the cornerstone of American democracy, designed to represent the population’s diverse interests at the federal level. Established under the Constitution, Article I, Section 2 mandates a decennial “actual Enumeration” of the population. This census serves as the basis for apportioning representatives among states according to their populations. The House’s size was originally intended to grow with the nation’s population. However, since 1929, the number of representatives has been capped at 435, despite significant increases in population and demographic shifts. This has led to a growing debate about whether expanding the House is necessary to restore balance and enhance representation.

History of Representation

The People’s House 

The concept of fair representation has been a crucial element of American government since the nation’s founding. The Revolution was, in part, a contest about the very definition of representation. In England, the House of Commons represented every British subject regardless of whether all of the subjects could actually vote for the Commons’ membership. In this sense, most people living in areas under British rule— including North America—were only “virtually represented” in Parliament. American colonists, who were accustomed to controlling their local affairs in the directly-elected colonial legislatures, lacked a voice in Parliament and resented the British policies imposed on them. They rallied behind the now familiar motto: “No taxation without representation!”  After the war, the founders struggled to design a system of government to better represent the inhabitants of the new country. The Articles of Confederation created the first national congress to represent the interests of the states; under the Articles, each state appointed between two and seven delegates to the congress, and each state delegation had one vote. This system proved unworkable. The Articles did not vest enough power in congress to effectively govern national affairs and prevent interstate conflict. The founders had largely avoided complicated questions of how to balance the interests of different states and their citizens in national policymaking by leaving most fundamental governing issues to state legislatures. The failure of this model led the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to design a system with a stronger national government. A key question was how such a government would best represent and empower individuals, communities, and states across the nation. One of the main concerns that overtook the Convention was the size of the House of Representatives. It was part of the struggle between large and small states that colored most of the Convention. If a proportional representation takes place, the small States contend that their liberties will be in danger. If an equality of votes is to be put in its place, the large States say their money will be in danger. When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the artist takes a little from both and makes a good joint. The “good joint” that emerged from weeks of gridlock was called the “Great Compromise.” It created a bicameral legislature with a House, where state population determined membership, and a Senate, where each state had two seats regardless of population. The House of Representatives was intended to be the branch of government most intimately tied to popular will. In Federalist No. 52, it is argued that the House should have “an immediate dependence on, and intimate sympathy with, the people.”  Members of the House have been directly elected by American voters since the chamber’s formation. Unlike the Senate, the House is not a continuing body. Its members must stand for election every two years, after which it convenes for a new session and essentially reconstitutes itself—electing a Speaker, swearing-in the members, and approving a slate of officers to administer the institution. Direct, biennial elections and its relatively large size have made the House receptive to a continual influx of new ideas and priorities that contribute to its longstanding reputation as the “People’s House.” The framer’s intended for the House to continuously grow. Most agreed that the strength of the lower house would be derived from the continued ability of the representatives to accurately reflect the “interests and circumstances” of their constituents. The Constitution imposed only one limit on the House’s size: that the “Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.” Though an amendment was attempted after the Convention to tie the House’s size to the nationwide population, it fell short of ratification by one state. The Constitution requires reapportionment of House seats every ten years following the census.

Congress has used several methods to determine the size of the House and the allocation of its seats. Congress initially used what has been called the Jefferson method. This approach involved setting a desired population-to-representative ratio, such as 30,000 to 1, and then dividing each state’s population by the population figure in the ratio to determine the size of each state’s respective House delegation. Under this approach, decimals are rounded to the lowest whole number. If a state’s population was 920,000 and the ratio chosen was 30,000 to 1, the formula would give the state 30 representatives after rounding down from 30.66. Congress used the Jefferson method through the expansion based on the 1830 census. 

For the rest of the 19th century, Congress used either the Webster or Hamilton method, which instead asked Congress to choose a number of representatives and used people-to-representative ratios and rounding to ensure appropriate allocation of those seats. In any case, the size of the House steadily increased during this period—though the ratio of people to representatives had increased to roughly 70,000 by 1830. Following the 1830 census, the House had grown to 240 members from 105 after the first apportionment in 1792.

The Reapportionment Crisis of the 1920s

Despite the constitutional directive, Congress faced an impasse in the 1920s regarding reapportionment following the 1920 census. For the first time, Congress failed to reallocate House seats after a decennial count. This failure stemmed from political and demographic challenges that created a deadlock.

Population shifts from rural to urban areas meant reapportionment would transfer political power away from rural states. Many members of Congress were reluctant to approve a reapportionment that would cause their states to lose seats or reduce constituent influence. Disagreements also arose over the mathematical method for calculating apportionment and whether to increase the House’s overall size. This prolonged inaction left the House operating with outdated representation for nearly a decade, creating a constitutional crisis. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 sought to resolve persistent issues surrounding congressional representation

Representation in the House should reflect national population shifts. Each state is guaranteed at least one representative, regardless of population size. Census data directly informs the calculation of how many representatives each state is entitled to.

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 limited the size of the House of Representatives to 435. This act established a permanent, automatic method for apportioning congressional representation based on the census, ensuring a consistent number of seats to 435. This fixed size aimed to prevent future debates over the total number of representatives.

The 1929 cap was instituted when the U.S. population was 122 million people. It’s now almost tripled to 331,449,281 (a 7.4% increase) million, which means the average congressional district now includes nearly 800,000 (761,952) constituents, according to the U.S. Census data. With current population growth estimates, the average district could have a million constituents (943,931) by 2050.

For nearly a century, the House has been fixed with 435 members. A growing movement in Congress and in think tanks, however, seeks to bump that number up to increase public access to members, improve diversity and reduce workloads for individual members

Drawing Districts for an Expanded House expansion is an important step in returning to the representative democracy the framers envisioned. Expansion, however, is not the only step that should be taken. The drawing of new district lines that would accompany an expansion of the House presents an opportunity to address the widespread and persistent use of partisan gerrymandering. 

The phrase “gerrymandering” dates back to 1812, from a political cartoon mocking a Massachusetts state legislative district drawn by Governor Elbridge Gerry to benefit his political party. Through the present day, gerrymandering has existed in nearly every state in the union. For decades, the practice went largely unregulated. The Supreme Court refused to hear gerrymandering cases until its 1962 decision in the landmark case Baker v. Carr. Baker held that a challenge to a Tennessee state legislative district map, which had not been updated since 1901, presented a claim the courts could decide. The state’s population distribution had changed so significantly in six decades that districts in predominately African-American urban areas had ten times more residents than districts in predominately white rural areas. On remand, the federal trial court in Tennessee held that the districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1964, the Supreme Court extended the “one person, one vote” principle to the drawing of congressional districts, holding in Wesberry v. Sanders that malapportioned districts within a state were unconstitutional. The Court has also invalidated district maps that racially discriminate. But these holdings have done little to prevent states from continuing to engage in partisan gerrymandering. And the Court has now ruled that partisan gerrymandering is beyond the federal courts’ reach. In June 2019, the Court decided two cases: one from Maryland and one from North Carolina. Both involved challenges to partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts. The lawmakers who created the districts at issue in both cases made no secret of their intention to draw lines that benefited their parties. In the North Carolina case, a Republican state legislator stated “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.” But the Court held that partisan gerrymandering presented a political question that it did not have jurisdiction to resolve. Its 5-4 decision asserted that it was impossible to create a constitutional standard for determining when gerrymandering was excessively partisan. The Court reasoned that regulating partisan gerrymandering was best left to the state legislatures and Congress. 

With a solution from the federal courts out of reach, a legislative solution to partisan gerrymandering becomes increasingly necessary. Congress needs to pass a law dramatically changing the way districts are drawn. Lawmakers will always have a natural incentive to help their parties through gerrymandering, while advances in technology are going to make gerrymandering worse in the future. Voting and voter registration data has become easily accessible, and predictive algorithms have gotten better at forecasting election results for proposed district maps, allowing state legislators to gerrymander their district maps with more precision. Partisan gerrymandering has broad consequences for America’s democratic process. The most blatant is the disproportionate representation of populations in Congress and state legislatures. North Carolina’s congressional district map, for example, resulted in 77% of the congressional seats being won by Republican candidates in the 2018 election, even though only 50% of North Carolina voters voted for Republican candidates. Another consequence of gerrymandering, and our current congressional election format in general, is that it dilutes the number of “competitive” elections nationwide. This, in turn, results in lower total voter turnout. In 2018, there were 86 congressional elections decided by ten percentage points or less. That is less than 20% of all congressional districts. In these 86 “competitive” elections, turnout was 16% higher than the 348 elections decided by more than ten percentage points. Voters have a greater incentive to turnout to vote when elections are more competitive, and voters feel like their vote has a greater impact on the outcome. If all congressional elections in 2018 had the same voter turnout as the competitive elections, there would have been more than 13.6 million additional votes cast nationwide. Gerrymandering also damages the country’s political climate and public trust in democratic institutions. A lack of fair representation causes voters in gerrymandered districts to become less engaged in democratic processes because they feel their involvement in politics does not matter. It also worsens political polarization because voters of a minority political party resent the majority party for diluting their representation in Congress and the state legislature. 

Several proposed solutions to gerrymandering have been recently implemented or proposed by several states.

Independent Commissions. 

There are currently only six states in the country that draw district maps using independent commissions: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. All of these states but Alaska appoint their commissioners using a bipartisan method. Montana has only one congressional district and uses their independent commission to draw the state legislature district map. These states have 76 of the 435 congressional seats, meaning independent commissions draw less than a fifth of districts nationwide. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of independent commissions drawing congressional district maps in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The Court ruled that Article I, Section 4, which requires the “Time, Place, and Manner” of elections to be prescribed by the state legislatures, was broad enough to permit states to designate districting powers to independent, unelected bodies. Additionally, legislation passed in the House in 2019 would require states to use 15-member independent commissions to draw district lines. The Supreme Court has indicated that such a requirement is within Congress’ authority. Independent commissions have not been implemented in enough states for a comprehensive evaluation of their efficacy and fairness. But in states where they are used, the results are mixed. In Arizona and Washington, with nine and ten congressional districts respectively, the congressional districts won by each party in 2018 closely resemble the percentage of votes won by each party in those states. In California, however, the congressional seats won in 2018 do not closely resemble the percentage of votes won by each party. The Democratic Party won 66% of all votes cast in 2018 but won 87% of the congressional districts in the state. This is an example of the flaw in independent commissions. While independent commissions result in fairer districts that both parties are happy with, they ultimately do not guarantee that the results of elections will accurately represent the people in those states. This is mostly caused by the first-past-the-post electoral systems used in most states, but independent commission district drawing is still a tepid solution to a bigger, more fundamental problem. Proportional Districting draws electoral districts and/or allocates seats in a legislature based on the percentage of votes parties receive in elections. This districting method was first devised by John Stuart Mill in the 19th century134 and has since been adopted in 87 countries, but not in any state in the U.S. Proportional districting’s most significant advantage is that it is much more responsive to the voting preferences 

“The biggest beneficiaries would be the American people, who would benefit from improved representation, as well as the representatives themselves, who would be able to share some of their already massive workload with their new colleagues,” stated. Fordham Law School’s Democracy and the Constitution Clinic report.

The Reasons to enlarge the House of Representatives include:

(These reasons highlight the potential benefits of expanding the House of Representatives, which could lead to a more responsive and representative government.)

Enhances Representation

Expanding the House would improve representation by reducing the number of constituents each representative serves, allowing for more personalized attention and advocacy. Currently, representatives are tasked with addressing the needs of hundreds of thousands of constituents, making it difficult to provide personalized attention and advocacy. A larger House would allow representatives to engage more closely with their districts, addressing specific community concerns and fostering stronger connections. Smaller districts would also enable representatives to better understand local issues, leading to more effective policymaking. This enhanced representation aligns with the democratic principle of ensuring that every citizen has a voice in government, strengthening the relationship between lawmakers and their constituents.

Reduces Disparities Among States

The fixed number of House seats creates significant disparities in representation among states. For example, smaller states like Wyoming have disproportionately higher representation per citizen compared to larger states like California. Expanding the House would redistribute seats more equitably, ensuring that representation is based more closely on population. This adjustment would uphold the principle of “one person, one vote,” addressing the current imbalances that favor less populous states. By making representation more proportional, an expanded House would create a fairer system that better reflects the diversity and size of the U.S. population. The cap on House members creates unequal representation among districts. 

Strengthens Democracy

Increasing the number of representatives would enhance democracy by making elections more competitive and accessible. A larger House would create a more equitable and inclusive legislative body, ensuring closer connections between lawmakers and their constituents.With additional districts, voters would have more choices and opportunities to engage with candidates who closely align with their views. This increased competition could challenge incumbents and reduce the influence of entrenched political interests. A larger House would also provide a platform for diverse voices, encouraging greater participation in the democratic process. By fostering inclusivity and reducing barriers to representation, expanding the House would strengthen the legitimacy and effectiveness of the U.S. democratic system.

Improves Constituent Services

Representatives with smaller districts can dedicate more time and resources to serving their constituents. Expanding the House would allow lawmakers to engage more directly with individuals, addressing their concerns and advocating for their needs. This closer relationship improves trust in government and ensures that representatives are more attuned to local issues. Constituents would benefit from better access to their representatives, who would have the capacity to handle casework and community outreach more effectively. Improved constituent services foster a sense of accountability and responsiveness, enhancing the overall quality of governance.

Reflects Population Growth

The U.S. population has grown dramatically since the House was capped at 435 members in 1929. This population growth has outpaced the capacity of representatives to serve their constituents effectively. Expanding the House would modernize its structure to reflect current demographics, ensuring that representation keeps pace with the nation’s size. By adjusting the number of seats, Congress can better accommodate the diverse needs of an increasingly populous and dynamic country. A legislative body that mirrors the nation’s growth is essential for maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of American democracy.

Diversifies Political Perspectives

A larger House would create opportunities for a wider range of political perspectives and ideologies. Smaller districts would lower barriers for candidates from diverse backgrounds, including women, minorities, and individuals with nontraditional political views. This diversity would enrich debates and policymaking, fostering a more inclusive legislative process. By amplifying underrepresented voices, an expanded House could address systemic inequalities and ensure that a broader spectrum of ideas is considered in national decision-making. A more diverse Congress strengthens the connection between lawmakers and the communities they serve, building a more representative democracy.

Encourages Bipartisanship

With more representatives, the House could foster greater bipartisanship and collaboration. Smaller districts would encourage lawmakers to focus on local issues that transcend party lines, fostering common ground and reducing polarization. Representatives serving smaller constituencies are more likely to prioritize the immediate needs of their communities over partisan agendas, leading to pragmatic and solution-oriented governance. Expanding the House could create an environment where compromise and cooperation are more achievable, enhancing the legislative process and building trust among the electorate.

Strengthens Local Representation

Expanding the House would empower local communities by creating smaller districts with more focused representation. Localized advocacy ensures that regional concerns, such as infrastructure, education, and economic development, are addressed more effectively in Congress. Representatives in smaller districts would have the capacity to engage deeply with community leaders, organizations, and residents, fostering partnerships that drive local progress. This enhanced local representation promotes a more balanced approach to policymaking, ensuring that the unique needs of diverse regions are not overlooked in national debates.

Addresses Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering, the manipulation of district boundaries for political advantage, is a persistent problem in the U.S. political system. Expanding the House would increase the number of districts, making it more challenging to draw boundaries that disproportionately favor one party. Smaller districts would dilute the impact of gerrymandering, creating fairer and more competitive elections. By reducing opportunities for manipulation, an expanded House would enhance the integrity of the electoral process and ensure that representation more accurately reflects the will of the people.

Aligns With International Norms

Compared to other democracies, the U.S. House of Representatives has a low ratio of representatives to citizens. For example, Germany and the United Kingdom have larger legislative bodies relative to their populations, ensuring more proportional representation. Expanding the House would bring the U.S. in line with international standards, demonstrating a commitment to democratic principles. Aligning with global norms reinforces the nation’s leadership in promoting representative governance and sets an example for emerging democracies worldwide.

Cons of Expanding the House of Representatives

Increased Costs

Expanding the House of Representatives would come with significant financial implications. Each additional representative would require a salary, benefits, office staff, and other resources, adding to the overall operational expenses. Moreover, the need for more office space, both in Washington, D.C., and district offices, would result in substantial infrastructure costs. Maintaining and supporting a larger legislative body could place a strain on the federal budget, potentially diverting funds from other critical programs. Critics argue that while representation is essential, the financial burden of expansion may outweigh its benefits, particularly in an era of growing national debt and fiscal constraints. The increased costs could also become a point of contention among taxpayers, especially those skeptical about the efficiency of Congress.

Logistical Challenges

A larger House would introduce numerous logistical challenges, including accommodating additional representatives in the existing Capitol building. The chamber where legislative sessions are held is already limited in size, and expanding the number of members would necessitate renovations or the construction of new facilities. Beyond physical space, managing a larger legislative body would complicate procedures such as voting, debates, and committee work. The increased complexity of coordination and administration could slow down legislative processes, reducing the efficiency of governance. Critics argue that these logistical hurdles may create more problems than solutions, making expansion an impractical proposition.

Risk Of Inefficiency

With more representatives, the decision-making process in the House could become less efficient. A larger body would mean more voices, opinions, and competing interests, which could lead to longer debates and challenges in reaching consensus. This inefficiency might delay the passage of important legislation, frustrating both lawmakers and constituents. Critics point to examples from other large legislative bodies worldwide, where an excess of representatives has hindered progress rather than facilitating it. The risk of inefficiency raises concerns about whether an expanded House would truly enhance governance or simply create additional bureaucratic layers.

Potential For Dilution of Influence

Expanding the House could dilute the influence of individual representatives, as each member would represent a smaller portion of the legislative body. This dilution might reduce the ability of representatives to effectively advocate for their constituents on national issues. In a larger House, individual voices may struggle to stand out, potentially diminishing the impact of each representative’s contributions. Critics argue that this trade-off could weaken the overall effectiveness of representation, as the increased number of lawmakers might not translate into more meaningful or impactful advocacy for constituents.

Complexity Of Redistricting

Expanding the House would require redrawing district boundaries across the country, a process that is often contentious and politically charged. The redistricting process could lead to disputes over how new districts are drawn, with accusations of gerrymandering or favoritism likely to arise. Ensuring fairness and equity in redistricting would require significant oversight and transparency, which could prolong the process and result in legal challenges. Critics contend that the complexity of redistricting could undermine the potential benefits of expansion, creating additional administrative burdens and political conflicts.

Risk Of Partisan Manipulation

While expansion could address some issues related to gerrymandering, it also presents opportunities for partisan manipulation. Political parties may attempt to influence the redistricting process to gain an advantage, drawing districts that favor their candidates. This potential for manipulation could exacerbate existing divisions and undermine public trust in the electoral system. Critics argue that without robust safeguards, expanding the House might fail to achieve its intended goals of fairness and equity, instead deepening partisan tensions.

Challenges In Leadership and Coordination

Managing a larger legislative body would pose significant challenges for House leadership. Coordinating agendas, managing debates, and ensuring effective communication among a larger number of representatives could strain existing leadership structures. Committees, already central to legislative work, would require restructuring to accommodate the increased membership, adding to the administrative complexity. Critics warn that these challenges could hinder the ability of the House to function smoothly, reducing its overall effectiveness as a governing body.

Potential For Bureaucratic Growth

An expanded House would likely lead to an increase in bureaucracy, as additional staff and resources would be needed to support the new representatives. This growth could create layers of administrative complexity, making it harder to streamline operations and ensure efficiency. Critics argue that the focus should be on improving the current structure rather than adding more representatives, which might only exacerbate existing inefficiencies. Bureaucratic expansion could also contribute to public skepticism about the effectiveness and accountability of Congress.

Risk Of Overrepresentation

Expanding the House might lead to overrepresentation, where certain groups or regions gain disproportionate influence. If new districts are not drawn equitably, expansion could result in uneven representation that favors specific demographics or geographic areas. This imbalance could distort national policymaking, as overrepresented groups might have undue influence on legislative decisions. Critics argue that expansion must be approached cautiously to ensure that it does not inadvertently exacerbate existing disparities or create new ones.

Resistance To Change

Implementing an expansion of the House would require overcoming significant political and institutional resistance. Many lawmakers and stakeholders may oppose the idea due to concerns about losing influence, increasing costs, or disrupting established norms. This resistance could delay or derail efforts to expand the House, making it a difficult reform to achieve. Critics also point out that public opinion may not universally support expansion, particularly if the potential benefits are not clearly communicated. The combination of institutional inertia and public skepticism poses a major hurdle to implementing such a significant change.

The current makeup of the House of Representative controlled by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, results in 435 members and 538 Electoral Votes. Currently for a person to be elected President an individual must have one half plus one or 270 Electoral Votes.

The number of total Electoral votes is determined by the sum of (1) the number of representatives in the House of Representatives (435); (2) the number of Senators (100) with two from each state; and (3) three electoral votes from Washing, DC (that come from the minimum number of representatives that the state with the fewest representatives has and the two senators that state would also have (3). This totals the number of Electoral Votes at 538.

The Apportionment Process

Cube Root Rule

Hopefully people remember their high school math. The square a number which produces a specified quantity when multiplied by itself, example three times three is nine. Therefore, the square root of nine is three. 

Well, the cube root is just multiplying that number by itself again. So, three times three times three is twenty-seven. So, three cubed is twenty-seven. Therefore, the cube root of twenty-seven is three.

Essentially, the cube root rule would establish the size of the House of Representatives based upon the census of the United States. The 2020 U.S. The Census determined the United States population to be 331,449,281 people. Under the Cube Root Rule using the 2020 census the size of the House of Representatives would be 693 representatives instead of 435, an increase of 258 representatives.

US Population and Representation by State

Using the Current Method and Comparing the Cube Root Rule

State	2020 Census	Current # of Reps	Avg People	Cube Root Rule Reps	Ave People	+/- Reps	District Size Reduction
Alabama	5,024,279	7	717,754	10	502,428	+3	215,326
Alaska	733,391	1	733,391	2	366,696	+1	366,695
Arizona	7,151,502	9	794,611	15	476,767	+6	317,844
Arkansas	3,011,524	4	752,881	6	501,921	+2	250,960
California	39,538,223	52	760,350	80	494,228	+28	266,122
Colorado	5,773,714	8	721,714	12	481,143	+4	240,571
Connecticut	3,605,944	5	721,189	8	450,743	+3	270,446
Delaware	989,948	1	989,948	2	494,974	+1	494,974
Florida	21,538,187	28	769,221	45	478,626	+17	290,595
Georgia	10,711,908	14	765,136	22	486,905	+8	278,231
Hawaii	1,455,271	2	727,636	3	485,890	+1	241,746
Idaho	1,839,106	2	919,553	4	459,776	+2	459,777
Illinois	12,812,508	17	753,677	27	474,537	+10	279,140
Indiana	6,785,528	9	753,948	14	484,681	+5	269,267
Iowa	3,190,369	4	797,592	7	455,767	+3	341,825
Kansas	2,937,880	4	734,470	6	489,647	+2	244,823
Kentucky	4,505,836	6	750,973	9	500,648	+3	250,325
Louisiana	4,657,757	6	776,293	10	465,776	+1	310,517
Maine	1,362,359	2	681,180	3	454,120	+1	227,060
Maryland	6,177,224	8	772,153	13	475,171	+5	296,982
Massachusetts	7,029,917	9	781,102	15	468,661	+6	312,441
Michigan	10,077,331	13	775,179	21	479,873	+8	295,306
Minnesota	5,706,494	8	713,312	12	475,541	+4	237,771
Mississippi	2,961,279	4	740,320	6	493,547	+2	246,773
Missouri	6,154,913	8	769,364	13	473,455	+5	295,909
Montana	1,084,225	1	1,084,225	3	361,408	+2	722,817
Nebraska	1,961,504	3	653,835	4	490,376	+1	163,459
Nevada	3,104,614	4	776,154	6	517,436	+2	258,718
New Hampshire	1,377,529	2	668,765	3	459,176	+1	209,589
New Jersey	9,288,994	12	774,083	19	488,894	+7	285,189
New Mexico	2,117,522	3	705,851	4	529,381	+1	176,470
New York	20,201,249	26	776,971	42	480,982	+16	295,989
North Carolina	10,439,388	14	745,671	22	488,154	+8	257,517
North Dakota	779,094	1	779,094	2	389,547	+1	389,547
Ohio	11,799,448	15	786,630	25	471,978	+10	314,652
Oklahoma	3,959,353	5	791,871	8	494,919	+3	296,952
Oregon	4,237,256	6	706,209	9	470,806	+3	235,403
Pennsylvania	13,002,700	17	764,865	27	481,581	+10	283,284
Rhode Island	1,097,379	2	548,690	3	365,793	+1	182,897
South Carolina	5,118,425	7	731,204	11	465,311	+4	265,893
South Dakota	886,667	1	886,667	2	443,334	+1	443,333
Tennessee	6,910,840	9	767,871	14	493,631	+5	274,240
Texas	29,145,505	38	766,987	61	477,795	+23	289,192
Utah	3,271,616	4	817,904	7	467,374	+3	350,530
Vermont	643,077	1	643,077	2	321,539	+1	321,538
Virginia	8,631,393	11	784,672	18	479,522	+7	305,150
Washington	7,705,281	10	771,528	16	481,580	+6	289,948
West Virginia	1,793,716	2	896,858	4	448,429	+2	448,429
Wisconsin	5,893,718	8	736,715	12	491,143	+4	245,572
Wyoming	576,851	1	576,851	2	288,426	+1	288,425
District of Columbia	Non-Voting	1		2
United States	331,449,281	435	761,952	693	478,282		297,923

Conclusion

The House of Representatives should be expanded to 693 members (the cube root is 692 plus a fraction, so we round up to the next whole number).

Expanding the House of Representatives is a complex and multifaceted issue with far-reaching implications for American democracy. On one hand, it offers numerous benefits, such as enhancing representation, reducing disparities, and fostering closer connections between constituents and their representatives. On the other hand, it presents significant challenges, including increased costs, logistical difficulties, and risks of inefficiency. Balancing these pros and cons requires careful consideration of the practical, political, and financial implications of such a reform. By understanding the 10 detailed pros and 10 cons outlined above, readers can engage in thoughtful discussions about whether expanding the House is the right path forward for ensuring a more equitable and effective democracy.

We, The American People, recommend tying the House’s size to the cube root of the nation’s population, which would lead to more seats. We also recommend federal legislation requiring all states to utilize a non-partisan approach to drawing districts that would eliminate gerrymandering. This blog is based in part on a report that was researched and written during the 2018-2019 academic year by students in Fordham Law School’s Democracy and the Constitution Clinic, which is focused on developing non-partisan recommendations to strengthen the nation’s institutions and its democracy. (Disclaimer: A significant portion of the information contained in this section is from the Fordham Law School’s report mentioned above.