[Salvey]

The size of the Congress has increased from time to time, so I see no good reason not to enlarge it somewhat --not in the thousands, as suggested, but perhaps up to, say, 500. That would surely give the "red" states more clout, and therefore be more reflective of the true political tone of the country.

[blanknoone]

That would surely give the "red" states more clout

Not really true. I think increasing the number of reps would make congress ever so slightly more responsive. But it is not a fix for gerrymandering...small districts can be gerrymandered even more easily and less conspicuously.

However, in terms of power, it would actually diminish republican power...at the very least at the electoral college. Small states with one rep get 3 electoral college votes (1 rep, 2 Senate). This small state advantage currently heavily favors Republicans. Increasing the # of reps would reduce this advantage in Presidential contests...which of course also affects the judicial branch.

[dvwjr]

There was a good argument made that the United States House of Representatives was closely tracking a "cube-root" representative model of the total voting-age population to total Representatives from the time of the First Congress in 1789 to the 61st in 1910. That is when we got locked in to the "magic" number of 435 representatives. (See the below graph)

Source: Growth in U.S. Population Calls for Larger House of Representatives by Margo Anderson.

Bottom line, if we follow the 'cube-root' model, we would now have 588 Representatives based on the 2000 census, instead of the current number of 435 dating from 1910. Sounds about right to me...

dvwjr