500 House seats = Gore officially wins the 2000 election

[Padfoot]

Make the house be set at 1,000.

...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.

I can't imagine how such an enormous body could function.  Would it really be plausible to have a House so large?  I'm definitely an advocate for increasing the House to 499 or 501 (to prevent a tie) but 1,000 just seems like way to many people to be effective. 

[Padfoot]

Make the house be set at 1,000.

...Or just keep increasing the size at each Census like was supposed to happen. Setting the House at 1,000 would cause the same problems of a lack of individual representation half a century from now.

I can't imagine how such an enormous body could function.  Would it really be plausible to have a House so large?  I'm definitely an advocate for increasing the House to 499 or 501 (to prevent a tie) but 1,000 just seems like way to many people to be effective. 

Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.

It would be nice to return to the days of 300,000 people/Representative.  If that were still the case today, every single state would likely have at least two representatives and 4 electoral votes.

[Padfoot]

Britain's House of Commons has 646 members (it was 653 until the 2005 reorganization in Scotland that made Scottish constituencies equal to English ones and will be 654 after the next election), and the House of Lords is even larger. They never have a problem functioning.

Let's be honest.  Very few members of the Lords attend.  The quorum is 3.  The Commons Chamber, IIRC, cannot hold all the members, IIRC.

In principle, I agree with a fixed population representative system.  I note however that the PA State House has 203 members, and that has not improved representation.

Another option is to fix the ideal district population equal to the population of the smallest state. In 2000 this would be WY at 495K. It would have resulted in 569 seats in the house.

I'd prefer it to be fixed to an actual number.  Perhaps somewhere between 300,000-600,000 people per district.  If you attach it to the population of the smallest state there is the chance (albeit slim) that the ideal district size could balloon up over 1 million or shrink down to only 100,000.