TIME TO SUPERSIZE THE HOUSE
WHY THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NEEDS A BIGGER SPEEDO (GERRYMANDERING)
Picture this: a 60-year-old guy, let’s call him Uncle Sam, strutting onto the beach in a Speedo he swore looked 'fabulous' when he was 20. Back then, it hugged his frame just right, turning heads for all the right reasons. Fast forward a few decades, a few burgers, and a lot of population growth, and that same Speedo is now a national embarrassment—stretched to its limits, barely containing the goods, and leaving everyone wondering, “Why hasn’t he upgraded to something that fits?” That, my friends, is the U.S. House of Representatives in 2025. Capped at 435 members since 1929, it’s trying to squeeze a nation of 340 million into a legislative swimsuit designed for a population one-third that size. Spoiler alert: it’s not a good look.
The Founding Fathers, those wig-wearing visionaries, imagined a House where each representative would serve a cozy 30,000 to 50,000 people—small enough for a rep to know their constituents’ names, gripes, and maybe even their favorite tavern. Today, the average House member represents a whopping 760,000 people, and in some states, it’s closer to a million. That’s like trying to herd a stadium’s worth of cats while pretending you’re still running a neighborhood book club. The House, meant to be the “People’s House,” has become more like the “People’s Megacorp,” with representatives so overstretched they can barely keep up with constituent emails, let alone their actual needs. And when democracy’s got a problem, the solution isn’t to double down on dysfunction—it’s to go big with more democracy. So, let’s talk about why it’s time to expand the House of Representatives, why gerrymandering makes this mess even messier, and why we need to organize and fight for a Congress that actually fits.
The Speedo Problem: A House That Doesn’t Fit
Back in 1787, the Founders designed the House to be the democratic heartbeat of the nation, a place where regular folks could send their neighbors to Washington to raise hell on their behalf. The Constitution didn’t lock in a specific number of seats; it just said each state gets at least one, and the total should grow with the population. For a while, Congress followed that plan, adding seats after every census like a kid outgrowing sneakers. By 1910, the House had 435 members, representing a nation of 92 million. But then, in 1929, Congress decided to freeze the number at 435, like a band that refuses to play new hits. Why? Rural states were worried about losing clout to booming urban centers, and some lawmakers fretted that a bigger House would be too chaotic—like a dinner party where you run out of chairs. Spoiler: the U.S. population didn’t stop growing. It’s now 340 million, and those 435 seats are trying to cover a nation that’s nearly quadrupled in size.
The math is brutal. In 1910, each representative served about 211,000 people. By 2025, it’s 760,000 on average, with some districts—like Montana’s—ballooning past a million. Compare that to other democracies: Germany’s Bundestag has 736 members for 84 million people, and the UK’s House of Commons has 650 seats for 67 million. The U.S. has the highest representation ratio among major democracies, meaning our “People’s House” is less people-y than most. It’s no wonder constituents feel like they’re shouting into a void. Try getting your congressperson to return your call when they’re juggling the needs of a small city.
This overcrowding also distorts representation. Small states like Wyoming (population 580,000) get one seat, while California’s districts average 760,000 people. That means a Wyoming voter’s voice is louder than a Californian’s in the House and, by extension, the Electoral College, where House seats determine electoral votes. The result? A system where smaller states punch above their weight, skewing democracy in ways the Founders never intended. If they wanted a House that grew with the nation, we’re about 100 years behind schedule.
Gerrymandering: The Art of Making a Bad Fit Worse
Now, let’s throw gerrymandering into the mix, because nothing says “democracy” like drawing district lines to screw over your opponents. Gerrymandering—named after that sneaky 19th-century governor Elbridge Gerry, who drew a district shaped like a salamander—is the dark art of manipulating voting maps to lock in partisan advantage. It’s like tailoring Uncle Sam’s Speedo to only flatter one political party. Techniques like “packing” (cramming your opponent’s voters into a few districts) and “cracking” (spreading them thin across many) ensure that election outcomes often reflect mapmakers’ whims rather than voters’ will. The Brennan Center for Justice notes that both parties do it—Democrats in Illinois, Republicans in Texas—but the result is the same: distorted representation that makes a mockery of fair elections.
Take Texas, where Republicans in 2025 are pushing to redraw maps to add GOP seats, citing population shifts but really just flexing their control. Or California, where Democrats are countering with their own redistricting plans, hoping to offset GOP gains elsewhere. NPR reports that these battles are heating up ahead of the 2026 midterms, with states like Ohio, Missouri, and Florida also diving into the gerrymandering fray. The Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that partisan gerrymandering isn’t a federal issue has only made things worse, giving states a green light to draw maps with surgical precision thanks to modern tech. Communities of color often get the short end of the stick, with race used as a proxy for partisan advantage, further diluting their voting power.
Gerrymandering thrives in a House where districts are already too big. When you’re carving up 760,000 people, it’s easier to hide shady line-drawing than if you’re dealing with smaller, more cohesive communities. Expanding the House could shrink districts to a more manageable size—say, 550,000 per rep, as some proposals suggest—making it harder to gerrymander without raising red flags. Smaller districts mean more granular representation, forcing mapmakers to respect local communities rather than slicing them up like a political pizza.
The Case for a Bigger House: More Democracy, Less Drama
So, why expand the House? For starters, it’s what the Founders would’ve wanted. They saw the House as the branch closest to the people, meant to grow with the nation to keep representation proportional. A larger House would bring districts back to a human scale, letting reps actually connect with constituents instead of relying on mass emails and overworked staff. Protect Democracy argues that smaller districts could lower campaign costs, since candidates wouldn’t need to blanket a million-person district with ads. That opens the door to more diverse candidates—think teachers, small business owners, or community organizers—who don’t have access to big-donor cash.
More seats also mean better oversight and lawmaking. Right now, House members are stretched thin, juggling committee work, constituent services, and fundraising (because apparently democracy runs on Venmo). Adding seats—say, 150 more, bringing the total to 585, as the American Academy of Arts and Sciences suggests—would spread the workload, letting reps focus on actual governing. It could also reduce the Electoral College’s bias toward small states, making presidential elections closer to the popular vote. Simulations show that past election outcomes wouldn’t have shifted much, so this isn’t about handing one party a win—it’s about fairness.
Then there’s the trust factor. Americans are fed up with a Congress that feels distant and unresponsive. Only 28% support expanding the House, per Pew Research, but that’s because most don’t realize how overstuffed their districts are. A bigger House could restore faith by giving voters a rep who’s less like a corporate CEO and more like a neighbor. Plus, it doesn’t require a constitutional amendment—just a simple act of Congress. The “Wyoming Rule,” which would set district size based on the smallest state’s population (about 580,000), or the “Cube Root Rule” (tying seats to the cube root of the population, around 700 members) are two practical ways to do it. Pick one, pass a bill, and boom: democracy gets a glow-up.
The Pushback: Why Some Folks Hate the Idea
Of course, not everyone’s ready to buy Uncle Sam a new Speedo. Critics argue that a bigger House would be a logistical nightmare. The Capitol’s already a sardine can—where do you put 150 more desks, let alone offices? Solutions exist: build new facilities, repurpose underused spaces, or embrace coworking setups like a congressional WeWork. Tech upgrades and elevated pathways could ease the crunch, too. Then there’s the cost. More reps mean more salaries, staff, and travel budgets. But compared to the Pentagon’s annual “whoops, we lost a trillion dollars” budget, it’s pocket change for a healthier democracy.
Some worry a larger House would be less efficient, with more voices turning debates into a reality TV shouting match. But let’s be real: Congress isn’t exactly a well-oiled machine now. A bigger House might force better collaboration, especially if paired with reforms like independent redistricting commissions to curb gerrymandering. Others fret about partisan shifts, but studies show expansion wouldn’t drastically favor one party. The real resistance comes from inertia and small-state politicians who like their outsized influence. Sorry, Wyoming, but your one rep shouldn’t outweigh California’s 52.
The Call to Action: Organize and Fight
Expanding the House isn’t just a policy wonk’s fever dream—it’s a movement. Reps like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Jared Golden, two Democrats with a conservative streak, are pushing for it, proving this isn’t a partisan pipe dream. But it won’t happen without pressure. Congress doesn’t exactly leap at the chance to disrupt its own power structure. That’s where we come in. Grassroots campaigns, petitions, and good old-fashioned yelling at town halls can make noise. Groups like Protect Democracy are already laying the groundwork, and the Freedom to Vote Act could tackle gerrymandering while we’re at it. Social media—yes, even X—can amplify the call. Imagine the hashtag: #SupersizeTheHouse.
The House of Representatives is bursting at the seams, and gerrymandering’s only making it uglier. It’s time to ditch the 1929 Speedo and give democracy room to breathe. A bigger House means smaller districts, fairer representation, and a Congress that actually looks like America. The Founders didn’t build a system to stay stuck in time—they built one to grow. So let’s organize, fight, and make Uncle Sam’s legislative wardrobe great again. Who’s with me?
Gerrymandering Explained | Brennan Center for Justice https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained?
Amid Trump's push, here’s how redistricting affects voters : NPR https://www.npr.org/2025/08/18/nx-s1-5495427/trump-redistricting-texas-congress-california
Expanding the House of Representatives, explained https://protectdemocracy.org/work/expanding-the-house-of-representatives-explained/
US population is growing, but House of Representatives is stuck at 435 https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/05/31/u-s-population-keeps-growing-but-house-of-representatives-is-same-size-as-in-taft-era/
Congressional Digest » Pros and Cons of Expanding the House https://congressionaldigest.com/pros-and-cons-of-expanding-the-house/