Comment: It can't be much bigger. That's the problem.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: great point (see in situ)

It can't be much bigger. That's the problem.

We'll have to maybe introduce some different ways of doing business in the halls of D.C, but we can't have large districts.

The biggest problems pre-civil war, which in fact led to war, began after the average district got larger than 50,000.

Also, I don't think we're at 350million yet. I think we're closer to just over 300m. That puts us around 6,000 representatives. Still large, but not as bad.

**using 2010 census estimates from 2008 when I did the math last, I found if we had adopted this for 2010, we'd have 6,190 members of the House right now with districts capped at 50k.