[Wytwwww]

Japan and South Korea are not federations. US already has multiple levels of representation increasing the number on the federal level wouldn't be that useful. The electoral system and gerrymandering seem like much, much bigger issue than the number of people per representative.

[maxwell]

Congress can't do anything about the electoral system or gerrymandering. The only beneficial structural change that Congress could make constitutionally is to repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

I'm not well versed on political subdivisions in Japan or South Korea, but there appear to be prefecture/province level officials that don't sound too far out of line with states. Looks like if the U.S. had the national representation (population per seat) of Japan we would have over 1000 reps, South Korea almost 2000.

[Wytwwww]

> I'm not well versed on political subdivisions in Japan or South Korea, but there appear to be prefecture/province level officials that don't sound too far out of line with states.

There is a huge difference between unitary states and federations. American states have legislatures, constitutions, and nearly unlimited rights to raise taxes. Prefectures in Japan are much closer to counties in the U.S. US states are much close to independent countries than to administrative subdivisions in unitary countries.

> Looks like if the U.S. had the national representation (population per seat) of Japan we would have over 1000 reps, South Korea almost 2000.

On the other hand it's about on par with the EU parliament. What would the advantages of significantly increasing the number of representatives be? Most individual matters should be addressed to state officials anyway.

[maxwell]

> What would the advantages of significantly increasing the number of representatives be?

Better representation, obviously. This is like asking the advantage of increasing the number of pixels on a screen.

How many average constituents per member is right? We're not going back to <50k constituents per member like the U.S. in the 1790s or Nordic countries today, but unclear why we can't get under 300k per constituent like Mexico or Australia.

We're an extreme outlier in OECD countries:

https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/enlarging-the-house/...

Looking at federations instead of unitary states, Mexico has ~250k per member, about 3x better than the U.S., while Australia has under 200k per member. Germany has only a little over 100k per member.

Potential effects of better U.S. representation here: https://thirty-thousand.org

> On the other hand it's about on par with the EU parliament.

The EU is a voluntary economic union (see Brexit), the U.S. is a federation of states which may not unilaterally secede (see Texas v. White).

[Wytwwww]

> The EU is a voluntary economic union

Regardless some very important economic and other policy decisions are taken on the EU level so wouldn't the same arguments regarding representation apply?

It just seems that scaling legislatures beyond a certain point might have diminishing returns would increasing the house to 900+ members really be a significant improvement? The actual influence a single random representative might be able exert would also be significantly diminished. Let's be honest the federal house of representatives is very extremely dysfunctional and is hardly even capable of accomplishing anything useful would increasing it's size somehow improve that?

And again in a multilayer heavily decentralized system such as the US most decisions that directly affect you or that you as an individual could actually influence are taken on the local or state level anyway.

> This is like asking the advantage of increasing the number of pixels on a screen

I'm sorry but (just like most analogies people make in general) this make doesn't make much sense.

[thmsths]

Thank you for your last point. That's my hunch too. I am more worried about unfair representation than "diluted representation".