The US population after the Census.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agreed. Make the total number of Representatives 1,000. What is so special about the number 435, anyway?

We'd need to either give Representatives smaller offices (as if the House would ever agree to that or build more House office buildings (as if the Senate would ever agree to that).

More seriously, I don't see where we're going to ever get a sudden jump in the size.

Besides, we don't need 1,000 Representatives.  The ideal size according to the cube root axiom would be 677 for a population of 310 million, and even for States extreme prediction of 375 million, we only need 721.

I like the cube root axiom as it provides a good balance between wanting a small body to make the legislative process work better (The Senate's inability to work smoothly is due to the supermajority filibuster.  The House would be even worse than the Senate if Pelosi needed to corral another 43 Representatives to get anything done.) and larger body to allow Representatives to serve fewer constituents.

[EDIT: I must have been channeling the spirit of Carl Sagan earlier. ]

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.