I've yet to see anyone put forth a reason why more congresscritters would equal better government.
For better or worse, one of the jobs of a Representative is to provide constituent services, i.e., act as an ombudsman, for the people in their district. Hence, more Critters would mean fewer people per Critter.
For another, smaller districts means that they are likelier to reflect the concerns of those districts as it would easier to make those districts homogeneous and compact. For example, the concerns specific to Lexington and Beaufort Counties don't share much in common, even though they are both fairly Republican areas at opposite ends of the 2nd District.
Additionally, and IMO more importantly, more Critters means reduced influence of money and therefore of outside lobbying that does not represent the interests of citizens.
Smaller districts are cheaper to run in, and in districts that are sufficiently small, television advertising (the primary advantage for well-funded campaigns) becomes totally unfeasible even for the most cash-rich campaigner. Local campaigns run on shoestring budgets can more easily oust corrupt or incompetent incumbents when the districts are small, reducing the strength of "special interests" of all kinds as well as reducing the incumbency advantage that leads to so much poor policy.
As an absolute number, there might be more corrupt congressmen, but undoubtedly they would be significantly fewer as a percentage of the total body of the House and thus as a special interests voting bloc.
