Are you saying we should have more reps in Congress?
I say this with all due respect if you are espousing this;
Are you insane?
Hey Kucinich, cry me a river. Maybe if you had helped make your State an enticing place to live, with low taxes, industry and jobs...people wouldn't be leaving and you wouldn't be out of a job. Turns out, there are consequences to your actions! Who'd have thought!!! :-)
LOL. Actually, there are some points to be made for expanding the size of the House.
A big point is the size on house districts is now headed North of 800,000 people and in another 20 years or so will probably be over a million. The Framers intended the House to be the people's body where the reps are close to the pulse of the people. How close can a rep stay to that many people?
When the Federal government was weak, and low taxing, and not threatening to our liberties, it was thought that the present ratio would be sufficient to carry out the few tasks. No the government is huge, with many agencies having immense powers, unsupervised but in theory only. Any one agency today has more power, more taxing ability( fees, permits, licenses.) then the origination government.
In effect, we are represented, and serviced and protected in theory only now.
One of the benefits of having a ten thousand member house, would be the deletion of special interests. Say you wanted to foist a tax eating, economy killing ethanol program. You would need thousands of lobbyists. Since few special interests would be able to assemble the money for such a purchasing ...er...lobbying army, the ten thousand house members would be more free to act on general principals as opposed to lobbying campaigns.
Maybe not!
If we tripled the size of the body, the respective power of each would be reduced by 2/3. Special interests and lobbyists would have to spend three times the money to purchase enough Reps to get their way, thus reducing their overall impact.