Is It Reasonable To Keep The House at 435 Members?

[Napoleon]

The problem with the House is that distircting is based on population.

It should be based on voters.

435 is a large enough number. Members still need to be able to build personal relationships. I think most states and other countries have too many representatives.

[Napoleon]

I think it's awful that states lose representation simply because they do not grow as fast as other states, or because another state is admitted into the union, simply to maintain an arbitrary size of 435 members, which was set at a time when the U.S. had a fraction of the modern population.

States are represented in the Senate, I might add.

[Napoleon]

No one seems to want to address the fact that the personal relationships keeping Congress working would be scarce and less valuable in a chamber of 1,000.