Would it be better if Houses grew at ^1/3 power?

[JagerIV]

More or less, the question in the title, would it be better if the size of congress grew at the 1^(1/3) power of the population? To illustrate what I mean, bellow are the sizes the congress would be if they followed this rule for the last 100 years, compared to the fixed size of 435 we have now, assuming as now this is done on the censuses.

Year	Population (millions)	Representatives	Change	Pop per Representative
1930	123	497	62	247,000
1940	132	509	12	259,000
1950	151	533	24	283,000
1960	179	564	31	317,000
1970	203	588	24	345,000
1980	227	610	22	372,000
1990	249	629	19	396,000
2000	281	655	26	429,000
2010	309	676	21	457,000
2020	331	692	16	478,000

Would this be an improvement over now to have the principle that the representatives would increase to the cube root of population represented, or would this be harmful to good governance?

 

[Cherico]

The british have 650 representatives, we have 435 members of congress.

However the UK doesn't seem to be any less of a disaster then we are so I dont think it would be that much of an improvement.

 

[bintananth]

The british have 650 representatives, we have 435 members of congress.

However the UK doesn't seem to be any less of a disaster then we are so I dont think it would be that much of an improvement.

Congress wanted to keep the number of Representatives manageable. My HS graduating class was only 154 and I didn't know the names of all of my classmates. I doubt that any Congressman or Senator would know, off the top of their head, the name of every Congressman and Senator.