The U.S. Constitution sets the minimum size for a congressional district at 30,000 and guarantees that every state has at least one representative.
Since the Constitution was written, the size of districts has continued to increase, even as the number of seats in Congress has increased, from 105 members to the current 435, the maximum number allowed since 1911.
Some now say that the 435-member House of Representatives is out of date and that the body is too small for the nation’s population, now about 315 million.
But a larger Congress is not necessarily a body more capable of handling the nation’s business. Districts of 700,000 members are indeed large, but their size is not a problem so much as the way they are drawn, sliced in a political process intended to benefit one party or the other. A nonpartisan process is preferable.
As to size, a Congress that keeps up with population is one that, ultimately, could become (even more) unruly. A representation of one for every 500,000 — which would not significantly reduce the problem of sprawling districts — would bump the size of Congress to about 600 members. Those 165 new members alone would not bring an end to bitter partisanship or gridlock.
Having one representative for every 300,000 residents, something that might reduce the need to sprawl districts across vast expanses, would leave the U.S. with a 1,000-member House.
Members of Congress are elected to represent their districts, and that includes diverse populations even within those districts. Efforts to pare down those sizes will not produce better representation.
— Longmont Times-Call