A recent poll indicates that a majority of Americans support expanding the U.S. House of Representatives by 150 seats and adopting proportional representation, signaling potential openness to sweeping electoral reforms. The survey, conducted by Fix Our House, New America, and Verasight, found that 54% of respondents favored adding 150 members to the House, bringing the total to 585 voting members. Additionally, 50% of participants expressed support for proportional representation, an electoral system where seats are allocated based on a party’s share of the vote rather than winner-take-all district contests.
The poll’s findings suggest a shift in public sentiment, though experts caution that legislative action remains unlikely in the near term. The U.S. House has been capped at 435 voting members since 1929, despite the U.S. population growing from 123 million in 1930 to over 331 million in 2020. Advocates argue that expanding the House could reduce district sizes and enhance voter representation. Political scientist Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, noted the survey’s results were surprising given the relative obscurity of proportional representation in the U.S.
Key Findings from the Poll
Support for the reforms crossed party lines, with 60% of Trump voters who expressed an opinion backing proportional representation. The poll also revealed that 50% of respondents supported the idea, while 25% opposed it, and the remaining 33% were undecided. The advocacy group Fix Our House commissioned the survey, which included responses from 1,000 participants.
How Proportional Representation Would Work
Currently, House elections use single-member districts, where the candidate with the most votes in a district wins the seat. Under proportional representation, larger districts would elect multiple lawmakers, with seats distributed based on each party’s vote share. For example, a party winning 40% of the vote in a district could secure 40% of the seats allocated to that district. Proponents argue this system could mitigate gerrymandering and reduce polarization by ensuring smaller parties gain representation.
Political and Legislative Hurdles
Congress has the authority to alter the House’s size through legislation, but such changes require broad political consensus—a condition that has been absent for decades. Earlier this summer, over 500 democracy and legal experts sent a letter to Congress urging consideration of proportional representation to address redistricting disputes. The letter stated, “There should be little doubt that the single-member district system is failing to deliver fair and representative outcomes.”
Opponents of the reforms argue that expanding the House could complicate legislative processes and dilute the influence of individual representatives. Some critics also contend that proportional representation might fragment the political landscape, making it harder to form stable governing coalitions. The 2020 census and subsequent redistricting battles have further highlighted concerns about fairness in the current system, with some advocacy groups pushing for structural changes to reduce partisan manipulation.
Historical Context and Reform Efforts
The House’s size has remained unchanged since the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which set the cap at 435 members. Since then, the ratio of constituents per representative has increased significantly, from roughly 300,000 people per member in 1930 to over 760,000 today. Reform advocates, including Drutman, argue that smaller districts could improve constituent engagement and reduce the influence of money in politics by making races more competitive.
While the poll suggests growing public interest in electoral reform, the path to implementation remains uncertain. Legislative proposals to expand the House or adopt proportional representation would require bipartisan cooperation, which has been scarce in recent years. For now, the survey results reflect a potential shift in voter priorities but do not guarantee imminent policy changes.