House Size No Longer Fixed: New Formula Could Mean Hundreds More Representatives, Plus Optional RCV

The Equal Voices Act proposes a radical overhaul of how the U.S. House of Representatives is structured and elected, aiming to make Congress less bureaucratic and more responsive. The biggest change? It scraps the 1911 law that fixed the House at 435 members. Instead, starting with the next census, the total number of Representatives will be calculated by taking the national population, dividing it by 500,000, and rounding the result to the nearest odd number (Sec. 2). Given the 2020 population, this formula would instantly create a House with hundreds more seats, dramatically shrinking the size of individual districts.

Your Rep Just Got a Lot Closer

Right now, the average Representative serves about 762,000 people. That’s a massive district. Imagine trying to get a return call from someone who has 762,000 clients—it’s tough. The thinking behind this bill is that smaller districts mean Representatives can actually connect with their constituents, leading to better service and more accurate representation. For the average person, this could mean that when you call your Representative’s office about a tax issue or a problem with the VA, your voice might actually carry more weight because your Representative has fewer people to juggle. The bill’s findings specifically note that American Representatives handle nearly three times the number of citizens as their counterparts in other developed democracies, suggesting this change is long overdue.

States Get to Choose Their Own Adventure: Multi-Member Districts and RCV

This bill offers states a significant amount of optional flexibility. States can choose to establish fewer congressional districts than the number of Representatives they are allotted, effectively creating multi-member districts (Sec. 3). For example, if a state is assigned 10 Representatives, they could draw only five districts, with two Representatives elected from each. Crucially, the old rule still applies: the population in those new, fewer districts must be as equal as possible per Representative.

If a state chooses to go the multi-member district route, they also gain the option to use Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for those congressional elections (Sec. 4). RCV is a system where voters rank candidates in order of preference instead of just picking one. This is where things get technical. Section 4 provides highly detailed, complex rules for how the ballots must be designed, how many candidates a voter can rank (ideally seats + four, but no fewer than five), and exactly how the votes are counted in rounds, including specific formulas for transferring surplus votes when a candidate hits the winning threshold.

The Fine Print on RCV: Complexity vs. Choice

While RCV is intended to give voters more choice and potentially reduce polarization by encouraging candidates to appeal to a broader base, the complexity introduced here is real. The detailed rules for surplus transfer and elimination rounds are dense and could be confusing for voters, especially those unfamiliar with the system. For a busy person, understanding the difference between an “inactive ballot” and an “undervote” might be too much to ask, potentially leading to more ballots being incorrectly filled out. If a state adopts this, election officials will need serious resources and clear communication to ensure the public understands the new counting process, which could also lead to longer wait times for final results.

The Emergency Brake: The 15% Commission

Recognizing that population growth could eventually make the House massive, the bill includes a safety valve. If the new formula results in a change of 15% or more in the total number of House seats compared to the previous census, a special 15-member commission must be established (Sec. 5). This commission, appointed by Congressional leaders, is tasked with analyzing the impact and recommending an optimal size for the House. While this provides a mechanism to prevent runaway growth, the appointment process for the commission itself—requiring balanced appointments from both parties—will be critical to ensure its recommendations are fact-based and not purely political.

Finally, the bill includes an open-ended authorization for the House and the Architect of the Capitol to receive “whatever money is necessary” to handle the increased space, staff, and resources required by this new, larger House (Sec. 6). While funding is obviously required to implement such a massive structural change, authorizing appropriations without a ceiling is a broad grant of spending authority that will require careful oversight.