Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Adding seats to the House would make the system work better

Opinion

House of Representatives

The 435-member House of Representatives.

Tasos Katopodis/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

Terrell is executive director and Goral is a communications fellow at RepresentWomen, a nonpartisan group advocating for policies that would result in more women holding office.


The United States is facing a growing representation crisis. While our population continues to grow, the number of elected officials representing us at the highest levels of government has not changed in more than a century. As a result, our Congress has among the most disproportionate representation ratios of any legislature in the world.

The constituency of the average representative will be 760,000 after the upcoming redrawing of House district lines, and at the current rate of population growth that number will be 1 million by 2050. These enormous numbers compound the feelings of inadequate representation that already permeate our democracy.

Fortunately there is an easy solution: expanding the House of Representatives.

From the very beginning the members of the House have been directly elected, so that they would have "an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people, as James Madison said.

When the House first convened in 1789, its membership of 65 ensured a ratio of one representative for every 60,000 people. The number of seats in the House then grew steadily decade after decade, expanding with the population and the findings of the decennial census, until the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 capped the "People's House" at 435 members — where it had been for almost two decades, and where it remains today.

It has been more than a century since the number of seats was expanded. In 1911, there was one member for every 216,000 people in a nation of 94 million. Now, that same number of people cast votes setting policy on behalf of 331 million — leading to inadequate representation of constituents, inequalities in representation among states, and a partisan skew of what was supposed to be the body of government most responsive to the people.

Expanding the House — which we believe should be populated with several members for each of a reduced number of districts, chosen in ranked-choice elections — would have a profound impact on our democracy, solving several problems that have arisen from the current crisis of representation.

First, expansion would decrease the sway that big-money donors and political action committees have over the members. A larger House would encourage grassroots campaigning and person-to-person interactions, which cost less than current campaigns —which had expenses averaging more than $2 million last year.

This will particularly help women and people of color, who are more likely to run as challengers or for open seats, because they would have a viable chance to win while relying on small-dollar networks of donors, and fewer financial resources overall than what almost always flows to the incumbents.

Second, expansion would have an immediate impact on the diversity of Congress. Due to the incumbency advantage, individuals running as challengers have very low success rates. Unfortunately the majority of women running for the House continue to be challengers. Last year there were 192 such candidates, and only nine won. (Another 17 women won open seats, while a record 98 congresswomen were re-elected.)

Expanding the House will increase the number of open seats available to political newcomers who are more likely to be women, younger and more racially diverse. Recent projections by our organization suggest that expanding the size of the House would significantly increase the number of women on Capitol Hill.

Third, expansion combined with multimember districts would create more engaged constituencies. Because people would be able to have more direct and intimate relationships with their representatives, the nation could look forward to an increased feeling of trust in and accountability from its government.

Finally, expansion would mitigate partisanship and polarization. A larger legislature would increase opportunities for members to cross party lines and form inter-party coalitions on policies.

Despite last year's record turnout for the presidential and congressional elections, too many citizens continue to feel alienated by politics — and too many feel unheard by their elected officials. Fixing this will take commitment and leadership on the part of Congress, but it also demands institutional changes like growing the membership of the House.


Read More

Congress Poised to Advance Bill Providing ALS Patients Their ‘”Best Chance’” at a Cure

Sandra Abrevaya and Brian Wallach give testimony at an Apr. 15 House Subcommittee hearing

(Photo by Stephen Voss, courtesy of I AM ALS)

Congress Poised to Advance Bill Providing ALS Patients Their ‘”Best Chance’” at a Cure

WASHINGTON — Brian Wallach spoke with his eyes.

The Illinois native and co-founder of I AM ALS has been living with ALS for eight years and can no longer use his voice. Instead, Wallach, 45, types with his eyes, then generates speech by applying artificial intelligence to old recordings of his voice.

Keep ReadingShow less
House Bill Pushes Bipartisan Effort to Tackle Federal Benefits Fraud, Refocusing from Immigration

Expert witnesses testify on the issues facing federal benefits programs run by states at a House Government Operations hearing on Wednesday, April 15, 2026.

(Photo by Naisha Roy | Medill News Service)

House Bill Pushes Bipartisan Effort to Tackle Federal Benefits Fraud, Refocusing from Immigration

WASHINGTON — Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, introduced a bill Wednesday morning that would create a permanent U.S. Treasury Inspector General position for fraud accountability as part of a broader effort to crack down on the misuse of federal benefits.

The bill would offer an alternative, bipartisan way to prevent federal benefits fraud, after several months of politically charged congressional hearings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Wants To Kill Your Moon Joy

In this handout image provided by NASA, As the Artemis II crew flew over the terminator, the astronauts described this boundary between day and night as "anything but a straight line." Crater rims along the terminator stand out as "islands" in the night.

Photo by NASA via Getty Images

Trump Wants To Kill Your Moon Joy

Just last week, four astronauts left Earth’s orbit, journeyed around the moon, and returned safely home. In the midst of new lows for humanity–like someone threatening to destroy an entire civilization when they have the resources to actually do it–the human race is simultaneously reaching new heights. It is marvelous, miraculous, and a milestone for all humans to celebrate. It is almost unthinkable, however, that at this moment, as the world rallies behind NASA in amazement, Trump is dismantling many of its programs, threatening to slash its budget, and generally working to kill your “moon joy.” Houston, we have a problem.

Artemis II hit close to home for me. The astronauts splashed down off the coast of San Diego, where I was stationed as a Navy pilot for the last eight years. More astronauts come from Naval aviation than anywhere else, and I am proud to wear the same wings of gold as two members of the crew. Following multiple deployments as a pilot, I certified aviation departments of surface vessels and helped deploy tactical air control squadrons aboard them; one of those vessels is where the astronauts landed after getting scooped out of the ocean by H-60 helicopters, the aircraft I flew during my service. All to say: I know intimately the preparation, technical rigor, talent, and coordination required for even relatively insignificant pieces of a mission of astronomical proportions. If we want to shoot for the stars, then we'd better recommit ourselves to what gets us there: science and DEI.

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol Building of USA

Senate votes increasingly pass with support from senators representing a minority of Americans, raising questions about representation, rules, and democracy.

Getty Images, ANDREY DENISYUK

Record Number of Bills and Nominations Passed With Senators Representing a Population Minority

From taxes to the environment to public broadcasting like PBS and NPR, the Senate has recently passed record levels of legislation and confirmed record numbers of nominations with senators representing less than half the people.

Using historical data, GovTrack found 56 examples of Senate votes on legislation that passed with senators representing a “population minority.” 26 of those 56 examples, nearly half, have occurred since President Donald Trump’s current term began.

Keep ReadingShow less