[Sai_]

Is that realistic? Even organizing a team lunch for ten involves a lot of customer discovery and tradeoffs and here too, the loudest voices (analogous to committed voters or lobbyists) usually win.

Even if the final ratio of representatives to voters is 1:10, you have only moved the problem upstream to this giant body of 33 million representatives who now need to agree on a policy. Simply voting Yes/No could lead to 50%-10 of the population feeling disenfranchised.

[EvanAnderson]

I think an expansion is logistically realistic and in the interests of voters. It’s also not in the interests of the established “ruling class” so it’ll never happen.

I found the arguments made by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to be compelling: https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/...

I tend to find the entire Our Common Purpose report[0] the Academy issued in 2020 to be pretty reasonable and in line with what I think the public interest is.

[0] https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/report