I. Legal Background

The U.S. Constitution sets up the House of Representatives to  “not exceed one for every thirty thousand.” Just as they could not predict cars or women wearing pants, our founders failed to predict that the U.S. population would reach 342.6 million people by its 250th birthday. In fact, if we tried to follow the founder’s vision, we would have more than eleven thousand representatives! While certainly the most constitutional possibility, eleven thousand representatives would be far too much, even for me. Luckily, by 1929, legislators had gotten the hint about the rapidly growing population and passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which capped the number of representatives in the House at 435. Although it was likely a smart effort at the time, the law was outdated from its inception. The 435-person cap they imposed in 1929 was based on census data from 1910.

 Now, almost 200 million people and 100 years after the cap was introduced, it’s time to expand the House again.

II. Arguments for Expansion of the House of Representatives

In a representative democracy, voters’ feelings of political efficacy—how capable they feel of influencing political change—are directly tied to how represented they feel by their congressperson. The research supports this: approval ratings for congresspeople are consistently higher in smaller districts than in larger ones. 

Imagine you’re at a party and your congressman is the DJ. When you first show up at the party, it’s only you and one other person. This means that your music requests to the DJ will constitute 50% of the playlist. As more people show up at the party, your song representation quickly becomes diluted. Once 10 people show up, your songs are 10% of the playlist. This continues on and on. I’m certainly not advocating for my songs to be 50% of the playlist, but why would I ever go to a party where I don’t know any of the music? 

We can apply this “playlist politics” logic to the House of Representatives. Due to its size, individuals feel isolated from their congresspeople. When politically isolated, fewer and fewer people participate, and representatives become less aware of their constituents’ needs. Constituents, feeling ignored by their representatives, participate even less. The process goes on and on in a democratic death spiral. 

We can prevent the death spiral by expanding the House. Right now, the average congressperson represents up to 770,000 people. That’s more than the population of some states! If we gradually expanded the House and reapportioned seats in proportion to new census data, we could help every American feel represented by their congressperson. 

III. Execution of Expansion

The size of the House of Representatives is currently set by statute. This means that we wouldn’t need a constitutional amendment to increase its size; rather, an act of Congress could achieve this expansion—making this relatively achievable. 

IV. Arguments Against Expansion

Many people who are against expanding the House of Representatives argue that it could give one political party an advantage over another. When tested, this fear has been proven unfounded. In the book, The Case for Enlarging the House of Representatives, 10,000 simulations of the 2020 election at different House sizes resulted in no more than a 3 percent advantage for either party when it came to gaining a majority in the House. 

Additionally, expanding the House of Representatives could help to fix the Electoral College. By putting more states in play, the college's increased representativeness (through the addition of electors) would likely make it more closely aligned with the popular vote. 

Finally, the strongest argument against expanding the House of Representatives is that people absolutely hate Congress. This is easily backed up with data, with only 12% of Americans approving of Congress right now. With such low approval ratings, why wouldn’t increasing Congress just make the problem worse? Luckily, I trust Fenno’s paradox, which states that Americans generally hate Congress but love their congressperson. What better way to increase approval for both?

V. Summary

Expanding the House of Representatives will improve almost every facet of American democracy. More people will be more accurately represented, the Electoral College will become fairer, and approval of Congress could go up. The benefits of expanding the House just make me want to dance. So, the next time I’m dancing, I’m going to make sure to tell my DJ about the political upsides of expanding the US House of Representatives.

VI. Acknowledgement

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Andrew Baum for editing this op-ed.

VII. References

American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (2026). Enlarging the House | American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Www.amacad.org. https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/initiative/enlarging-House-representatives.

Congressional Digest. (2023, May 1). Pros and Cons of Expanding the House. Congressional Digest. https://congressionaldigest.com/pros-and-cons-of-expanding-the-House/.

Constitution Center. (1787, September 17). The U.S. Constitution. Constitution Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf.

Gallup Polling. (2025). Congress and the Public. Gallup.com; Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx.

Harold Mendoza. White Concrete Building under Cloudy Sky during Daytime. Photograph. Published February 7, 2020. https://unsplash.com/photos/white-concrete-building-under-cloudy-sky-during-daytime-6xafY_AE1LM.

US House of Representatives, H., Art, and Archives. (2018). The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. USHouseHistory. https://history.House.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/.