The number of representatives is simply set by law so congress could, say, triple the number of representatives. The current size was set 90 years ago when there were fewer states and the dynamics were different.
This was addressed in the second paragraph. If representatives were tripled, Wyoming and Vermont would have lower representation percentages, but Montana would just have their number of representatives tripled to three (actually Montana is close to the cutoff so going by percentages they would probably get four representatives) so would face no real change. The large states like California and Texas might see representation percentages rise or dip slightly, but this would have essentially no effect legislatively or electorally. 55/535 is fairly close in value to 159/1405.
As a matter of arithmetic, this sort of change would not meaningfully change political decision-making in USA.
A friend pointed out that large states in general would benefit relative to small states in general, even if by a small amount. However, I don't see California and Texas voting together any more than I see Wyoming and Vermont voting together, so that too seems like a wash.
> The number of representatives is simply set by law so congress could, say, triple the number of representatives.
Yes, members of Congress could vote to decrease the power of each individual member of Congress to undo the effect of their previous vote to assure that power would increase over time, but it'd take native popular pressure to get them to do so.
By international comparison the US has a pretty small number of reps/inhabitant.
Both houses of congress in supermajority control of a party not holding the presidency could do it.
Also more reps means more leadership posts, more committees and more people on those committees all spreading those sweet sweet press ops around.
I could see it happening.
The logistics of fitting people in the Capitol building might be tough. There are advantages to a smaller legislature (more people means more institutional politics)
> By international comparison the US has a pretty small number of reps/inhabitant.
Yes, because Congress voted to maximize the power of individual members of the House, and to preserve the Presidential election power of the same small states favored by the structure of the Senate by freezing the size of the House (and thus the by-population component of the Electoral College.)
> Both houses of congress in supermajority control of a party not holding the presidency could do it.
It'd be more likely for a party holding the Presidency (specifically, the Democratic Party, with the present ideological/geographic alignment of the parties), since you require less members (simple majority) and it's an assault on the personal power of members of the House
and also weakens the Presidential-election voting power—because the Electoral College is tied to Congressional representation—of the same interests systematically overrepresented in the Senate; the problem is not getting Presidential support, but getting members of Congress in both Houses to vote against their own interests.
> Also more reps means more leadership posts, more committees and more people on those committees all spreading those sweet sweet press ops around.
Attention is limited, more reps means each rep gets less of it, and the delta between the top leaders and everyone else gets bigger. Most members of the House lose personal power and the small states lose power in the Electoral College; the first is the reasons it's unlikely to get even a simple majority in the House, the second is why the same is true of the Senate.
Unavoidable side effect of USA's ridiculous size. USA and the world would be happier, more peaceful, and more prosperous if we broke up into about ten pieces with different spending policies.
