The districts of members of the House of Representatives should be reduced in size to reflect a closer connectivity with the people of the district. In the early years of the United States, the House of Representatives was designed to be the branch of Congress closest to the people. The original ratio of representatives to constituents was approximately 1:30,000, allowing representatives to mainta

The Argument

The districts of members of the House of Representatives should be reduced in size to reflect a closer connectivity with the people of the district. In the early years of the United States, the House of Representatives was designed to be the branch of Congress closest to the people. The original ratio of representatives to constituents was approximately 1:30,000, allowing representatives to maintain close connections with their constituents. This proximity fostered a strong sense of accountability and responsiveness. Over time, as the population of the United States has grown, the size of House districts has increased significantly. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the number of representatives at 435, leading to larger districts as the population grew. Today, each member of the House represents an average of approximately 760,000 people, a far cry from the original ratio. The large size of contemporary districts has several negative consequences. Representatives find it increasingly difficult to maintain direct contact with their constituents, and the sheer number of people they represent makes it challenging to address individual and community-specific concerns. This disconnect can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement among voters, a perception that their representatives are out of touch with local issues, and a lack of trust in the political process. Reducing the size of representative districts can also help mitigate the issue of gerrymandering by increasing the number of districts, thereby making it more challenging to draw boundaries that systematically favor one party. With smaller districts, the demographic diversity within each district tends to be less pronounced, reducing the ability to manipulate boundaries to create safe seats for a particular party. This leads to more competitive elections and representatives who are more accountable to their constituents, as the impact of gerrymandering diminishes with the increased difficulty of strategically designing numerous small districts to achieve a particular political outcome. The United States is in the top ten countries with the highest percentage of constituents per single representative. This list includes Indonesia, Brazil, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, European Union, India, and China—not normally the type of “democracies” we like to be compared to. To pour salt in the wound, we are the third highest in the world. Our closest European allies that have the most populated democracies (England, France, and Germany) have between 95,000 to 115,000 persons per representative. The previous point leads us to the common concern that increasing the number of representatives would lead to a less functional House of Representatives. However, this is not necessarily the case. A larger House could enhance deliberation and representation by bringing in a more diverse array of voices and perspectives. Historical examples from other countries with larger legislative bodies, such as the United Kingdom’s House of Commons, (650) and Germany’s Bundestag (735 in 2024), demonstrate that larger legislatures can function effectively and efficiently. Advances in technology and modern communication methods can facilitate the functioning of a larger House. Digital platforms and tools can streamline legislative processes, improve communication among representatives, and enhance transparency and accessibility. These tools can help manage the increased number of representatives and ensure that the legislative body operates smoothly. Increasing the number of representatives could also help mitigate extreme partisanship, especially if incorporating the other policy initiatives in this chapter. With more representatives in the context of the other reforms, the influence of any single party or faction is diluted, leading to more coalition- 45 HOW DO WE REPAIR THE DAMAGE DONE BY MODERN PARTISANSHIP? building and compromise. This environment can foster a more collaborative and less polarized legislative process. Reducing the size of House districts and increasing the number of representatives is a crucial step toward enhancing the connection between representatives and their constituents and ensuring effective governance. A larger House of Representatives would not necessarily lead to dysfunction; instead, it would enhance representation, facilitate more comprehensive deliberation, and mitigate partisanship.