Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Adding seats to the House would make the system work better

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

The $2 Billion a Day Problem of Polarization
A person holding a stack of dollar bills that are flying away.
Getty Images, PM Images

The $2 Billion a Day Problem of Polarization

What do a sausage maker and an insurance giant have in common? A growing concern about the divisions fracturing American society — and a willingness to do something about it.

At Johnsonville, recent research with The Harris Poll found that 82% of Americans agree there’s too much outrage in the country and wish we could “turn down the temperature.” The company’s “Keep It Juicy” campaign, voiced by actor Vince Vaughn, encourages Americans to reclaim everyday joy and civility. Meanwhile, Allstate, one of the nation’s largest insurers, has launched a three-year initiative with the Aspen Institute to strengthen trust in communities. Their message is clear: “Strong communities, businesses, and relationships are built on trust.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes As Teachable Moments
File:Flooding of the Guadalupe River near Kerrville, Texas in 2025 ...

Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes As Teachable Moments

The deadly Texas floods have receded, leaving lost and shattered lives. Donald Trump tells us not to politicize the moment, with spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt calling the floods “an act of God,” meaning no one is responsible. However, because the floods and the climate disasters that follow them make the costs heart-wrenchingly visible, they give us the chance to discuss root causes and the choices we face. If we don’t have these conversations, these teachable moments will quickly fade.

Democratic pushback has focused primarily on cutbacks to the National Weather Service and FEMA, leaving critical offices understaffed and undermining the ability to plan effectively. But the pushback has focused less on climate change, even as, the day before the floods, the Republicans paid for massive tax breaks for the wealthiest in part by slashing federal support for wind, solar, battery, and electric vehicles, energy efficiency, and other investments that gave us a chance to join China and Europe in leading the technologies of the future. So we need to discuss the choices presented to us by this tragedy — and all the others that will come.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defend Democracy Against Bombardments on the Elections Front –A Three-Part Series
low angle photography of beige building

Defend Democracy Against Bombardments on the Elections Front –A Three-Part Series

In Part One of this three-part series, Pat Merloe explored the impact of the political environment, the need for constitutional defense against power-grabbing, and the malign effects of proof of citizenship on voting.

In Part Two, Merloe explored the harmful effects of Executive Orders, the reversal of the Justice Department on voting rights, and the effects of political retribution.

Part Three: Attacks on the Courts, and the Need to Defend Universal and Equal Suffrage

As noted in Parts One and Two of this series, multipoint attacks against trustworthy elections are underway with just 16 months until 2026’s voting and less time before off-year elections this November. Awareness of the attacks – and those fortifying trustworthy processes – is crucial for defending democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans rally for Ukraine
People draped in an American flag and a Ukrainian flag join a march toward the United Nations.
Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

How a ‘Bad’ Ceasefire Deal With Russia Could Jeopardize Ukraine, American Interests

WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration resumes sending weapons to Ukraine and continues urging a ceasefire with Russia, international actors have voiced warnings against a deal that could leave Ukraine vulnerable, jeopardize nearby countries, and threaten American interests.

President Donald Trump has vowed to end the war, but a United States-brokered deal would need to balance Ukraine's independence and European security, experts have said.

Keep ReadingShow less