I've actually done a little digging and the history of the House of Representatives is quite interesting. Apparently when the Constitution was first approved, each Representative actually "represented" only about 30,000 people! As the nation has added new states, the number of Representatives grew slightly, but not hardly enough to keep up with population growth. According to the figures I have, each Representative now "represents" 3/4 of a MILLION people. In my estimation, this tends to favor big cities at the expense of rural areas, which frequently aren't even represented at all. Montana has a total population just over one million people, yet are afforded only ONE Representative in the House.

I think that we would get better representation by re-establishing a more representative House. We need to stop thinking of the House in terms of 435 seats and think of it in terms of population blocks. Now it probably isn't reasonable to go back to a ratio of one Rep per 30,000 people. By my math, the House would then comprise more than 10,500 members! But even if it were altered so that the House seated one Representative per 200,000 I think you would have a vast improvement even though the House would increase to 1,564 members. In my opinion, the nation would gain three very important benefits. First, it would make buying votes in Congress MUCH more expensive - prohibitively so. It would also greatly decrease the power any one Representative would hold. Second, this would greatly re-enfranchise rural areas, whose voices in the current system are hardly heard at all. Third, it would reward States who attracted population by creating a climate of low taxes and employment opportunities with greater representation in public affairs.

Of course this would place great emphasis on the Census and would require a clause mandating that only Citizens of the United States be counted for House Apportionment.