The Wyoming Rule is that the size of the House of Representatives should expand to be the population of the United States divided by the size of the smallest state. The argument goes that the 435 cap means that large states end up underrepresented even though the House is SUPPOSED to be proportional to population. EG California, on 2019 estimates, has 68 times the population of Wyoming, but "only" 53 House seats to Wyoming's one.
The Wyoming Rule, on 2019 estimates, would increase the House of Representatives from 435 seats to 567 seats and most states would end up with House seats with a population around 570k rather than over 700k. Rather than California having 53 seats to Wyoming's 1, California would have the full 68 seats to Wyoming's 1. This has a number of benefits: more lower population seats makes gerrymandering both harder and less productive, as every individual seat matters less. It also means that Representatives, having smaller districts, are forced to be more accountable to individual constituents. If you only represent a seat that has about 3/4ths the people the old one did, it stands to reason that every voter weighs 4/3rds more in your mind than they did before.
The House of Representatives chamber would likely have to be modified to fit that many people, but such a thing has happened before and can happen again. Also, there'd need to be one more House Office Building, but that's really a pretty petty concern.
Historically this has been known as the Delaware Rule or the Delaware-Nevada rule.
Delaware was the smallest state from 1790-1840, except in 1820 when Illinois was.
Florida and Oregon trailed the pack in 1850 and 1860, respectively.
Nevada took the tail in 1870 and held it until 1950. The maximum house size would have been 1794 in 1900, gradually declining to 942 in 1950.
Alaska took over for the next three decades, and by 1980 the House had 564 members.
From 1990 to 2010, Wyoming was the smallest. The House size of 548 in 2010 would have been the smallest since 1850.
