If the US House of of Representatives were to be increased in size how many members could the current chamber be remodeled to fit before an entirely new chamber would need to be built? Or even a new Capitol?
During the State of the Union address, all 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, 15 Cabinet heads and nine Supreme Court Justices can sit in the floor of the House. So that’s 559. They can probably cram a few more seats in there, so figure a maximum of maybe 600. Of course, you could also seat members in the upper galleries. I saw one unverified claim that they can hold up to 500, Being conservative, you could probably get 1,000 of those ceremonial desks on the two levels.
The Representatives don’t get ceremonial desks, do they? (Senators do.)
There are some desk-like additions in the House for the use of each party’s officials, but I suspect those are movable/temporary.
As for adding Representatives to get to 600 or so: that’s probably possible. But then they’d have to hold any Joint Sessions (such as the State of the Union) somewhere else. Or make the Senators sit in the upper galleries, to which they’d object.
Why do you need a seat for every member ?
When the British MPs were discussing rebuilding the Commons after it was bombed in 1943, some argued that the new chamber should be larger to accommodate every member.
Churchill was opposed. His argument was two-pronged.
First, for the most part, the House was rarely full. He argued that a smaller House encouraged debate and the members knowing each other, because the smaller scale would match up better with the actual usage of the chamber.
Second, he was of the view that in a crisis or matters of great importance, having a crowded House would have the psychological effect of highlighting the tensions and the significance of the events under discussion. We saw that when the Queen died. When the members were giving their individual eulogies and remembrances, the House was standing room only. There were MPs standing near the Speaker’s chair, at the ends of the rows of benches, and so on; wherever they could fit in. The crowded chamber emphasised that a very significant event was under discussion.
Article that discusses this point:
The other problem would be that a much larger chamber would dilute the bias of senators for smaller states in the electoral college.
600 congresscritters means about 550,000 population per seat versus currently aboout 761,000. Montana or North Dakota would still have only 1, Rhode Island would still have 2. South Dakota and Delaware would go from 1 to 2, Alaska might also. Vermont would stay 1, Montana would stay 2, while Hawaii and New Hampshire would go to 3, The average would be about 1.38 times as many, so New York would go from 26 to 35, California from 52 to 72, Texas from 38 to 52, Florida from 28 to 39, and so on.
The senator count from each state would only contribute 1/7 of the electoral college instead of now, almost 1/5. As a result, the party that tends to sweep smaller states would be less likely to accept expansion, and the smaller states in general would be less happy about diluting their electoral power.
I guess it’s a more complex question what it would do to a state’s ability to gerrymander if the districts had to be smaller.
Parliamentary it is because in Congress a member is required to be present unless excused by the presiding officer. So if no one is excuse and there is a Quorum Call everyone needs somewhere to sit.
Or do you think some of them should have to stand all Session?
Why not? Seems ideal to get the message across to late-comers that they should be on their toes. 
Don’t they have individual vote buttons at the desks? Microphones?
(I presume it is the height of misconduct to push another member’s buttons…)
Gaetz and the Freedom Caucus seem to have done it a lot.
[Moderating]
This is not appropriate for FQ.
[Not moderating]
I’m not sure what you mean. Montana currently has two.
True. Apologies.
That is simply a House of Representatives rule that the House can change with a simple majority.
So is the chamber full every day the house sits? Aren’t the Reps doing a lot of work in committees? Or is that different times of the day?
The Washington Post had a feature maybe a year ago where they mapped out the various layouts that the current House chamber could accommodate for an expanded membership. But since I canceled my subscription in disgust, I can’t link to it.
Other than the majority/minority leaders they do not have individual desks (and what the leaders have are tables). There are voting stations at the end of each row where they go and insert a card to key in their vote (picture1) and a set of microphone podiums up front and at the leaders’ tables (picture2) that the member has to approach to be recognized to address the House.
If you’re curious, this congressional apportionment calculator lets you figure out the number of representatives per state for any possible size of the house. With 600 representatives in the House, ND, AK, VT, and WY still only have one representative, but SD & DE get a second one. You appear to need in the ballpark of 850 representatives for the smallest state (WY) to get a second representative.
All other things being equal, I would think that more districts means more choices in drawing lines means more opportunities for gerrymandering. In the extreme case, there’s currently no opportunity for gerrymandering in VT or WY. More generally, “cracking and packing” strategies are easier to implement if you can split your opponents’ support into a larger number of districts.
Yes, sorry I was thinking of Wyoming I guess. My foreign geography knowledge gets a little fuzzy out west.
Interesting. I’ve learned my one new thing for the day.
Does this mean that if the member gives his card to a colleague they can vote, or is that a major faux pas? Physical presence required to vote? I vaguely recall hearing of the olden days when members were necessarily away and would trade off with a member from the other party to (politely) keep the balance, much as Canadian parliamentarians do.
That’s exactly what British MPs do during the State Opening of Parliament (and I suppose other Commonwealth kingdoms have similar traditions). The speech from the throne for that event (which is read by the King but written and approved by the government, laying out the government’s plans for the coming year) takes place in the chamber of the House of Lords, because the King is by convention not allowed to enter the chamber of the Commons. So you have the King sitting on the throne in the Lords’ chamber, the Usher of the Black Rod walking over to the Commons’ chamber to summon them, and then MPs walk over to the Lords’ chamber to hear the King’s speech while they remain standing.
My understanding is that a larger house would reduce gerrymandering. The New York Times found that increasing the House by 153 would increase the share of competitive districts from 10% now to 25% - a pretty big difference.
It would also reverse a lot of the outsized influence of rural states in the electoral college, all without requiring a constitutional amendment. This Bluesky accounts advocates: