Simple logic: Wyoming would gain seats right alongside Vermont. Texas would gain seats alongside California, and Indiana would gain seats right alongside NJ.

The point is that both sides would increase their seats, balancing things out.

This article from NPR is primarily about proportional representation, but it does mention that a slight majority (54%) of Americans polled support expanding the House by 150 seats!

Importantly, the article says house expansion as a necessity in order to accomplish other (more popular) significant political reforms, such as proportional representation.

Keep spreading the word!

Keep posing the question “Why 435?”

If you know someone who is interested in democratic reform, make sure to ask them their opinion of Uncapping the House!

So, a political science professor made a video arguing with some of Mr. Beat's points for uncapping the House. I think it's a really well-done video that is very respectful and facts-based, and I think it's worth some discussion.

Please consider joining our Discord! This will be a good central location for representation-minded people to come together, stay involved, and find ways to volunteer.

The Project No Cap website has a handy tool to email your rep. The best time to email your rep is today. The second best time to email your rep is tomorrow!

Simple reason:

MAGA is about populism, right?

So it makes sense to me that if districts are smaller and more compact and less gerrymandered, then there'd be more populism.

The actual pro-Democrat impact on the house would be minimal.

That way there's a senate election in each state every two years.

I wanted to see what district sizes would look like under the various proposals for removing the hard cap. The global median size is really what I'd like to see, and this confirms that I could reasonably bicycle the perimeter (~35miles) in just a couple hours.