Althouse inked it from the NYT. Expanding the House of Representatives actually seems sensible, fair, and long overdue. The downside of more offices is a small price in DC terms, and it would dilute the lobbying money. The article includes the observation that if we had the same representation as when the Constitution went into effect, we would have 11,000 members of congress - one for every 30,000 people, but that would be unwieldy and impossible. Would it? We could get a lot closer to them and know more about them, and it would be really hard for party leaders to pressure members into votes or for lobbyists to buy enough to make a difference. NH has a lower house of 400 members, as you trivia buffs might remember. The third-largest legislative body in the world, after Iceland and the US House. We have more knuckleheads but less corruption. I call that fair.
So what am I missing?