The First Reform: Uncapping the House of Representatives
When a relationship is broken, the answer isn’t to make the parties agree on everything; it’s to create better communication. The same is true for the relationship between the people and their representatives. Now is the time for representation reform. Instead of fighting for power in that rigged system, citizens and politicians should focus on repairing the system by uncapping the House of Representatives.
There is a consensus in our country among the right and the left: things are broken. Ambitious and hardworking people from across the political spectrum propose reforms to repair it. But there is one reform that rises above the rest, one that is necessary for any other reforms to be accomplished.
Uncapping the House of Representatives
Donald Trump arrived on the scene in 2016, telling his supporters that the system is rigged. Bernie Sanders said the same thing. And right now, in Virginia, former President Obama is telling voters to support mid-decade redistricting because President Trump and the GOP are distorting representation. But what if instead of fighting over power and pointing fingers at the other side, our leaders focused on repairing the system?
Leading political theorist, author, and AEI fellow Yuval Levin agrees, saying, “Uncapping the House, […] allowing it to grow, is an absolutely pivotal and in some ways first necessary reform because it creates a moment that makes other changes much more possible.” It is also supported by political theorists from the right and left, conservative and liberal, from Yuval Levin to Patrick Deneen, Danielle Allen, and Lee Drutman. Yet the legacy media, social media, and our most popular politicians are silent on this pivotal reform.
Uncapping the House means repealing the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. The act was written at a time when our population was booming. After the 1920 census, which was the first to record more than 100 million people, and the first to record more people living in urban areas than rural ones, Congress struggled to write a new apportionment bill. The combination of a shifting and growing population created friction in the process. Some states were worried about losing representation, and other members were concerned about the effects of immigration on representation. Others thought the size of the House was already too large and unruly, having argued about it since the 1890s.
Since the cap in 1929, the population has tripled, making what was once a large, representative legislative body a very small, unrepresentative one compared to the population it serves. This is a major reason the system feels broken. With such a small legislative body, each member’s power is greater, and each citizen’s vote is less influential. The distance between the citizen and the representative strains communication and makes it harder to hold the representative accountable if they fail to fulfill their responsibilities.
Representation is the foundation of self-government, but right now each member of the House represents about 760,000 people, making the United States one of the least-represented democracies in the world.
Representation is three things: communication, power, and responsibility. It’s what makes self-government possible. It is the thing that protects our life and liberty and allows our pursuit of happiness. A lack of representation explains why Americans feel powerless in their government.
The people are getting restless; reformers who want to repair the system need to rally behind uncapping the House as the First Reform. By focusing on representation, people can get the most influential players in media, tech, and government to address this core issue, creating a moment for other reforms to ensure a stable, functional government for our children and children’s children.
To repair our republican system and create a fairer and more equitable playing field, we need to talk about this with our friends, family, and neighbors. Americans will likely have some questions. For example, where would we put the new members? How many seats should there be? Why this reform? Why now? Wouldn’t it take a constitutional amendment? And would uncapping the House benefit one party more than another?
Why Uncap the House?
Representation is the foundation of self-government, but right now each member of the House represents about 760,000 people, making the United States one of the least-represented democracies in the world. Every major policy debate goes through the House: immigration, health care, welfare, taxes, and national security. If representation is distorted, then so too will be the results from those debates. If only a small faction of the voices of the country are heard, then how can self-government work? The answer is it can’t. Uncapping the House opens the lines of communication between the people being governed and the governors. Every successful relationship is built on strong, honest communication, and the relationship between the people and the government is no different.
Why Now?
The 2030 census is fast approaching, which will trigger the next congressional reapportionment. Congress must repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 before that census cycle, otherwise the country simply locks in the same unrepresentative system for another decade. At the same time, the country is approaching the 100-year anniversary of the 1929 Apportionment Act. This provides Americans with an opportunity to reflect on whether that decision still serves a nation that has nearly tripled in population.
It’s moments like this, during historic anniversaries and major census cycles, that institutional reforms become politically possible. If the conversation does not happen now, the issue may be deferred for another ten years or more. Yuval Levin calls reapportionment “Constitutional Maintenance,” like changing the tires in your car. We keep rotating the same tires every ten years, but we haven’t changed them for nearly one hundred years; do we really want to keep driving on them for another ten?
Can the Capitol Fit More Representatives?
According to Danielle Allen and architect Michael Murphy, yes. In a 2023 Washington Post article, Allen explains that the Capitol could accommodate up to 1,725 members with some reengineering.
Wouldn’t This Take a Constitutional Amendment?
Unlike many popular reforms, like term limits, repealing the 17th Amendment, or abolishing the electoral college, uncapping the House only requires a simple bill. Congress could repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 with a simple majority in both branches of Congress and the President’s signature. And while that may seem like a daunting task at such a time of partisanship, it’s much easier than having to get a supermajority in both branches.
Would Uncapping the House Benefit One Party More Than Another?
Uncapping the House would help every American gain better representation in their government, regardless of party. The group that benefits most is the American people. As for a party, no one really knows who would come out on top. Parties gain power for a variety of reasons, not just apportionment. And while expanding the House will have partisan incentives, uncapping the House is not inherently partisan. The party that comes out on top will likely be the one that best represents the people’s interests. If politicians are worried that it’s not their party, they should work to change their party, not fight against representation, or switch parties so they can do their jobs as representatives properly.
What About Other Reforms?
Other reforms can help, but they don’t address the root structural issue: each member of Congress represents far too many people. When districts contain over 750,000 constituents, campaigns become expensive and devolve into a battle for attention rather than a conversation between local communities. Expanding the House directly improves the scale of representation. Smaller districts make campaigns cheaper, improve communication between representatives and citizens, and create more opportunities for new leaders to emerge.
What About the Cost?
The Members’ Representational Allowance, or MRA, is the cost of running a congressional office. The MRA varies from session to session, but the average cost is $1.9 million per office, while the representatives’ pay is $174,000 per year. Increasing the size of the House by 150 members would raise costs by roughly $311.1 million per year. Congress is supposed to oversee the executive department that spends roughly $7 trillion per year. The increase to the legislative branch is about 0.0044 percent of annual federal outlays, or 4 cents for every $1,000 spent. With a larger workforce, Congress will be better equipped to oversee the executive branch, and even modest improvements in oversight could save far more than the added legislative cost.
What Should Be the Number of Seats in the House of Representatives?
Madison argued in Federalist No. 10 that the number of representatives should be raised “to guard against the cabals of a few; and that however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.” In short, there is no perfect number. At the founding, the number was set at a ratio of 1 representative per 30,000 people. Whatever the number or ratio should be is up to the people, and their representatives should start having the conversation now. Some of the more popular methods are the Wyoming Rule, which would set the size of the House so that the largest district is no bigger than the population of the smallest state; the Cube Root Rule, where the size of a legislature approximates the cube root of the national population; expansion set by ratio, under which Sean Caston (D IL-6) has legislation setting the ratio at 1 representative per 500,000 people.
The First Reform is Representation Reform
Our political system is broken because representation is limited. This creates negative incentives for political factions. The problem with factions that Madison warned about is that factions fight for control. The fewer factions, the easier it is for one faction to take control. The solution presented was not to limit factions (which would limit representation), but a republican government rooted in the people, where all factions were represented.
Right now, the controlling factions drive the conversation, and that is about who will win, not about the people they represent. It’s about them, not us. Citizens and reformers must shift the conversation from who will run the government and back to self-government. America isn’t about one-party rule; it’s about the people ruling through representation. When a relationship is broken, the answer isn’t to make the parties agree on everything; it’s to create better communication. The same is true for the relationship between the people and their representatives. Now is the time for representation reform. Instead of fighting for power in that rigged system, citizens and politicians should focus on repairing the system by uncapping the House of Representatives.
