Gerrymandering is the result of political parties gaming for power, which is unlikely to be eliminated; however, uncapping the House would significantly reduce its impact.  Smaller districts are harder to distort because it’s easier for the people to reach them. 

When districts contain nearly 800,000 people, map-drawers can manipulate large populations with relatively few lines. Smaller districts mean:

• More precise representation of communities

• Less “packing and cracking” power per district

• More competitive seats, especially in growing suburbs

• Harder-to-sustain extreme district shapes
  

The larger the district, the more distortion a single line can create. By reducing district size, uncapping the House makes maps more granular and less powerful as a partisan weapon. Uncapping the House makes gerrymandering less structurally potent.

The Electoral College is based on each state’s total members of Congress (House seats + 2 Senators). If the House expands, the total number of electors increases. Because every state still gets two Senate-based electors, expanding the House reduces the relative weight of those fixed Senate bonuses.

In practice, that makes the Electoral College more proportional to the population without changing the Constitution or eliminating the system.

We believe the American people should have a say in the representation ratio that determines the size of the House. The Constitution does not fix the House at 435 members — it only sets a minimum standard. There are several strong options worth considering:

• The Wyoming Rule – Set the size of the House so that the largest district is no bigger than the population of the smallest state. This would expand the House to roughly 550–600 members today.

• Cube Root Rule – A common international benchmark where the size of a legislature approximates the cube root of the national population. For the U.S., this would mean about 690–700 members.

• Return to a Historic Ratio (e.g., 1:30,000–1:50,000) – The Founders envisioned much smaller districts. A modernized version of that ratio would significantly expand the House.

• Moderate Expansion (e.g., 585–650 seats) – Sean Caston has legislation to expand up to 230 members and the Academy of Arts and Sciences proposes an increase of 150 members. 

Our position is not about one “magic number.” It is about restoring representation and allowing voters to determine what level of access and accountability they want in their government.

No. Expanding the House is structurally neutral.

Uncapping the House does not change who votes, how votes are counted, or how districts are drawn. It simply reduces the population size of each district and restores representation as the country grows.

While either party might speculate about short-term advantages, the long-term effects are institutional rather than partisan:

• More competitive districts can emerge in fast-growing suburbs and metropolitan areas.

• More granular representation makes it harder for either party to rely on broad, blunt district lines.

• Reduced Electoral College distortion occurs because House seats (which are population-based) become a larger share of total electors.

Historically, House expansions have occurred under both Democratic and Republican majorities. The reform is about strengthening representation and accountability, not favoring one party over another.

No. Just a simple a simple bill.

Yes. Because representation is the foundation on which every other issue rests, and the timing makes the issue particularly urgent.

Every major policy debate in America—immigration, healthcare, taxes, housing, education, national security—is ultimately decided by Congress. If the system of representation itself is strained or distorted, the outcomes on those issues will be distorted as well.

The House of Representatives was capped at 435 members in 1929, when the United States had about 100 million people. Today, the country has more than 330 million. As a result, the average congressional district has grown from roughly 220,000 people per representative to more than 760,000.

That change has quietly reshaped American politics:

• Representatives are farther from the people. It is harder for citizens to know, influence, or realistically become their representative.

• Campaigns become more expensive. Larger districts require more money to reach voters, increasing dependence on large donors and national political networks.

• Polarization increases. With fewer seats, each district becomes a high-stakes ideological battlefield rather than a smaller community-based constituency.

• Opportunities for new leadership shrink. Fewer seats mean fewer chances for local leaders to enter Congress.

The 2030 census is fast approaching, triggering the next congressional reapportionment. Congress must repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 before that census cycle, otherwise the country simply locks in the same representation system for another decade.

At the same time, the country is approaching the 100-year anniversary of the 1929 Apportionment Act. This provides Americans with an opportunity to reassess whether that decision still serves a nation that has nearly tripled in population.

Moments like this—major census cycles and historic anniversaries—are when institutional reforms become politically possible. If the conversation does not happen now, the issue may be deferred for another ten years or more.

Much of Congress’s dysfunction comes from the incentives created by having too few seats for such a large country. When there are only 435 members representing more than 330 million people, each seat becomes extremely powerful and extremely difficult to win. That pushes candidates to rely on national fundraising networks, media attention, and ideological branding rather than local relationships and practical problem-solving.

Expanding the House changes those incentives.

With more seats and smaller districts, campaigns become more local, less expensive, and more focused on real communities. The job becomes less about building a national brand and more about maintaining relationships with the people you represent.

A larger legislature also dilutes the influence of disruptive actors. In a small body, a handful of members can block legislation or dominate attention. In a larger chamber, power is spread out, and it becomes easier for broad coalitions to form and move legislation forward.

Most importantly, representation itself is about a relationship between citizens and their government. For that relationship to function, representatives must be close enough to their constituents to understand their circumstances and maintain real communication.

As the population has grown, that relationship has been stretched thinner and thinner. Expanding the House restores the scale of representation needed for a large republic to remain connected and responsive, to maintain access and accountability, and to govern.