When will we increase the size of the House and when we do, by what?

[diptheriadan]

.

[KingSweden]

Probably never, sadly, though the Wyoming rule is the way to go

[DrScholl]

The House does not need to be increased. More seats for Republicans to gerrymander is the last thing that is needed.

[Virginiá]

The House does not need to be increased. More seats for Republicans to gerrymander is the last thing that is needed.

I was under the impression more seats, thus smaller districts, makes it more difficult, not easier, to gerrymander. Either way, I think the average number of people per district has gotten far ahead of what was originally intended. 700,000 people is too much. I think there are practical limits to the size of the House, but adding another 100 - 150 seats does not sound unreasonable.

[Blue3]

It should be much higher, make it a nice clean even number, like a 2000-member House of Representatives.

[136or142]

I would hope not now. Construction costs in the Washington D.C area are pretty high right now.  Maybe later renovations to the House could be made.

(I'm sure that's not funny but I liked it: You can't please everybody, so you've got to please yourself.)

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

The House does not need to be increased. More seats for Republicans to gerrymander is the last thing that is needed.

Its impossible for 435 people to represent 300 million effectively.

[136or142]

The House does not need to be increased. More seats for Republicans to gerrymander is the last thing that is needed.

Its impossible for 435 people to represent 300 million effectively.

More like 330 million.  Being serious, I agree. I used to think there was a Constitutional limit to the House at 435 members, but there isn't.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

IMHO the house needs to double (at least!) in order for it to be properly representative.

[DrScholl]

The House does not need to be increased. More seats for Republicans to gerrymander is the last thing that is needed.

I was under the impression more seats, thus smaller districts, makes it more difficult, not easier, to gerrymander. Either way, I think the average number of people per district has gotten far ahead of what was originally intended. 700,000 people is too much. I think there are practical limits to the size of the House, but adding another 100 - 150 seats does not sound unreasonable.

To some extent that is true, but it depends on the state. There is a need for smaller districts and more seats, but it should also come with redistricting reform. Between 535 and 600 seats is a probably the best that could be done when taking into consideration the need to expand the House chamber.

[LabourJersey]

If we abolish the Senate, there'd be enough office space for 600-650 House members. The House floor could probably fit 600 anyway, and the only times it will be full is for votes and the SOTU. It's not like this would require construction or anything.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The House does not need to be increased. More seats for Republicans to gerrymander is the last thing that is needed.

I was under the impression more seats, thus smaller districts, makes it more difficult, not easier, to gerrymander. Either way, I think the average number of people per district has gotten far ahead of what was originally intended. 700,000 people is too much. I think there are practical limits to the size of the House, but adding another 100 - 150 seats does not sound unreasonable.

     It is worth noting that originally each Representative had an average district of 33,000, less than 5% of the typical district size today. I don't think that would be feasible to reattain, but I would support increasing the House to over 1,000 Representatives (pending the need for a new Congressional floor).

[136or142]

If we abolish the Senate, there'd be enough office space for 600-650 House members. The House floor could probably fit 600 anyway, and the only times it will be full is for votes and the SOTU. It's not like this would require construction or anything.

If you build a new Congressional building on a different site, and tell President Trump he can sell the old building (or the land that it's on) I'm sure he be all for it.

[Santander]

Reduce the size of the federal workforce by attrition! As members die out or retire, don't replace them.

[elcorazon]

Republicans will never favor increasing the size of the house. It is too democratic, which is opposed to their agenda.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The House does not need to be increased. More seats for Republicans to gerrymander is the last thing that is needed.

I was under the impression more seats, thus smaller districts, makes it more difficult, not easier, to gerrymander. Either way, I think the average number of people per district has gotten far ahead of what was originally intended. 700,000 people is too much. I think there are practical limits to the size of the House, but adding another 100 - 150 seats does not sound unreasonable.

     It is worth noting that originally each Representative had an average district of 33,000, less than 5% of the typical district size today. I don't think that would be feasible to reattain, but I would support increasing the House to over 1,000 Representatives (pending the need for a new Congressional floor).

Yes, about 1,000 seems right. It would mean one representative for 300K people, which is still larger than ideal, but a decent compromise.

[MarkD]

I think it will never be increased. I can't imagine there being any successful movement to increase it.

Republicans will never favor increasing the size of the house. It is too democratic, which is opposed to their agenda.

groan. SMH.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Conceivably, the next time we are a state, we won't return to 435 as we did after Alaska and Hawaii.