The proposal to dramatically expand the size of the House would ultimately generate more problems than it would fix. At its current size of 435 members, the House is already slow and inefficient, and doubling its size would only exacerbate these problems. Increasing the size of the House to 1,000 members would make the already protracted process of lawmaking even longer. Furthermore, a larger number of representatives with smaller constituencies and narrower interests would increase the potential for pork-barrel spending and inefficiency. Members of the House, in order to curry favor with their constituencies, generally try to direct federal funding toward their own districts through earmarks in legislation. It follows that having more representatives would likely result in increased spending on numerous projects that are not of national significance. Whatever gains in equity are achieved by expansion would be overwhelmed by losses in effectiveness.

Redrawing the lines will address some of the population shifts over the last decade, but much of the disparity will remain, because it is built into the system. In theory, every member of the House represents roughly the same number of people. But because each state gets at least one seat, no matter how small its population, and because the overall size of the House has not changed in a century, the number of people represented by a single congressman can vary widely.