Expand the House to end the gerrymandering arms race

Once again, the United States has tied itself in knots over gerrymandering. As public trust erodes, the real structural culprit rarely gets the attention it deserves: The House of Representatives has remained effectively fixed at 435 members since 1929, even as the nation's population has more than tripled. The result is ballooning districts, higher political stakes and map-drawing incentives that reward manipulation.

A simple, durable reform would ease this pressure: Expand the House to match modern America.

Today, roughly 338 million Americans in the 50 states are represented by 435 members — an average of about 777,000 residents per district. At that scale, gerrymandering a few seats could tip control of the House. Oversized districts dilute representation and make it nearly impossible to keep counties or municipalities intact.

A larger House would blunt these incentives by shrinking districts and increasing the number of seats in play. If we targeted a ratio around 300,000 residents per district, the House would grow to roughly 1,100 members.

That is a big Congress. But preserving representative democracy amid intense polarization may require big solutions. Congress has expanded before, and while logistical questions remain — committees, staffing and space — the federal government itself has grown dramatically since the House was capped. The underlying issue is not physical capacity but political will.

Smaller districts would make it easier to draw lines based on recognizable geographic units instead of sprawling, irregular shapes designed to capture or exclude particular voters.

This becomes especially clear on Long Island. Nassau County, home to about 1.4 million residents, is now divided among three districts. One stretches into both Queens and Suffolk County, and in another Nassau communities are appended to a Suffolk-centric district. Under a 300,000-person model, Nassau could support four or five seats of its own. Those districts could align with town boundaries — Hempstead, North Hempstead and Oyster Bay — or clusters of villages.

Suffolk, with roughly 1.5 million residents, would likewise expand to about five districts. That would allow lines to reflect Suffolk's distinct regions: the western suburbs of Babylon and Islip, the central hub of Brookhaven, and the East End. Today, Brookhaven is split between two districts simply to meet population targets.

What would this mean for voters?

First, the demise of "bridge" districts — cross-county hybrids that exist only to meet population thresholds. These awkward constructions would become unnecessary, and heavily contorted maps would be harder to justify.

Second, greater local accountability. Members of Congress would represent tighter clusters of communities, making local priorities — from property taxes to coastal resilience, water quality and Long Island Rail Road infrastructure — their central focus.

Third, more organic competition. Expanding the House would create a mix of safe and competitive seats that better reflects Long Island's politically "purple" character instead of distorting it.

All told, incentives would be realigned so geography and community identity matter more than partisan optimization. Nassau and Suffolk counties could finally serve as coherent building blocks of representation.

In a polarized era, such structural reform may seem unlikely. Yet no constitutional amendment is required — Congress has the authority to change its own size.

Defusing the current redistricting arms race would, however, require bipartisan leadership. A reform of this scale should be championed by groups like the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus.

If we want fairer maps and healthier representation, the answer isn't endless litigation over where lines are drawn. It's changing the scale of the map itself.

This guest essay reflects the views of Christopher Malone, deputy executive director of policy and education innovation at the Consortium for Worker Education.