Is It Reasonable To Keep The House at 435 Members?

[muon2]

Does anyone know how many physical seats there are (or could be fit in) the current chamber. 

I don't think a chamber of 600 or 700 members would work that well, but even a slight increase of 50 or 60 members would help.   I strongly support whatever number of increase would net Tennessee a 10th Congressional district  

At some point in our lifetimes each congressman could represent a million people or more - which is way outside the bounds of what our founding fathers envisioned.

I asked that question when I toured the Capitol about 10 years ago. The answer I got was that 600 could certainly be accommodated. The respondent noted that the 535 combined members of Congress all fit comfortably along with other dignitaries for the State of the Union.

[muon2]

while 1 per 100,000 would be ideal on a local basis, I think maybe that should be the goal on the state level. Federally, a 1000 member Congress may be the most appropriate number (but no more than that)

Indeed.  The federal government shouldn't be more representative than the states.

You know what that's like.

WTF to California. 

State legislatures should operate more like national legislatures and in some cases (eg California) be more representative.  California should not have less state senators than members of congress.

In Canada, some cities have fewer councillors than MLAs, but no province has less MLAs than MPs. (Ontario has the same number, as they use the same districts)

It depends on whether you compare upper houses or lower houses. CA has more state house members than federal house members and more state senators than federal senators. I don't see why a comparison of state senators to federal house members highlights any problem.