The Congressional Cap

In 1929, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act. This act capped the number of members in the House of Representatives rather than increasing seats to keep pace with population growth as had been done since America’s founding. The House still has only 435 members despite the near tripling of the population since 1929, and this has led to a situation in which each representative serves an average of over 760,000 constituents, the highest rate of any western democracy. 

The Cap Hurts Voters

Removes power from rural areas:

• When districts are diverse, for instance districts with both city and rural populations, representatives are more likely to pay attention to the needs of the larger voting bloc. This is particularly evident in city/rural split districts where rural regions suffer because, although they make up the majority of the physical area of the district, the high population density city becomes the representative’s focus, and the city receives an unfair portion of his or her effort, engagement and funding initiatives, leaving the rural areas out in the cold.
  

Allows more outside donor money to be funneled to each campaign

• Fewer campaigns means donor money does not have to be stretched as far. This allows outside donors to influence candidates more than local residents. More, smaller campaigns means less monetary outside influence, and campaigns become a better reflection of their communities rather than donor interests. 
  

Leads to unequal representation between states

• Under the current system, some states are underrepresented while others are overrepresented. For instance, Wyoming’s population of less than 600,000 has one representative. Meanwhile, Delaware has over a million people but still only one representative, the same number as Wyoming. Uncapping the House would ensure each state more equitable representation.