A political science professor at Northwestern University, in combination with one at New York University, recently promoted an idea in a NY Times op-ed on how to reform the US House of Representatives.
Their proposal was to increase the size of the House closer to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, who set up the original House to reflect 30,000 white males in each congressional district in 1789 and after. Of course, women and blacks and native Americans were not counted at the beginning for purposes of congressional representation.
Their point was that now a member of the House of Representatives represents approximately 700,000 people, and that the fixed total of 435 was only set after the 1910 census.
Meanwhile the population has tripled since 1910, so the argument is that a member of Congress cannot represent his or her constituents adequately, as there are too many people per congressional district.
Their proposal is to raise the number of members of the House of Representatives from 435 to 1500, so that each congressional district represent only 200,000 people, about the same as in 1910. This would, supposedly, make members of Congress closer to their constituents and make for greater levels of democracy.
The author must say that he totally disagrees with this proposal, considering it unworkable and chaotic!
As it is, the House of Representatives is too unwieldy with 435 members, and often what goes on in the House is nothing more than chaos, as it is hard to keep order and to move forward on legislation expeditiously.
To have 1500 members is an insane idea, and would not promote progress, but rather confusion and disarray. And the idea of third party movements having a say only promotes further chaos, anarchy, stalemate and gridlock.
A multiparty system would not work better than our two party system, and would be far less efficient.
And also, how about the offices and seating space required for 1500 members in the House Office Buildings and House chamber? And what about the costs of having that large a legislative body?
The comparison is made by the authors of this op-ed that Great Britain has 61 million people and 650 members of their Parliament, making it one for every 78,000 people, and that Canada has 33 million people and 308 members of their Parliament, making it one for every 109,000 people.
But these countries are a lot smaller in population, so they can have the luxury of having smaller numbers of people per representative.
But to have such a large number as 1,500 in a nation of 310 million people is simply too unwieldy and difficult to manage and to work efficiently.
If anything, the author would argue for a smaller House, closer to 301, where each member represents one million people, as a way to make for efficiency. but of course the Congress would have to vote to make themselves smaller, which is not about to happen! 
And also remember that members of the largest populated states in the Union have their Senators represent many millions of people, and as long as they have adequate office space, budget, and staff, that can be accomplished, so the idea of a larger House of Representatives is just that–an idea that will see no fruition, but certainly is an interesting subject for discussion by academics!
