It is an odd article from the New York Times. Basically....they went back and found that the founding fathers had this vision that members in the House of Representatives were supposed to represent around 30,000 citizens. So the jest of this article is that 435 Representatives aren't enough. Yes, they are suggesting a House with 1,500-odd members as a minimum.
I sat and pondered upon this. First, the Capital building would not be big enough to house this size of a group and an entirely different structure would have to be added onto the back of the building.
Then you start to take into account the sheer size and amount of money to finance 1,500-odd members. Toss in those odd trips to Paris and the Bahamas....then toss on the staff folks for each member, and then top it off with office space in the DC area for everyone.
The driving force for this idea? To make Representatives actually represent the folks that put them there in the first place....not the party.
This is an idea which will never go anywhere. Just the voting situation of every two years and having 1,500 folks coming up for re-election....would make this difficult to imagine. Toss in the fact that Bama alone...would likely have 28-odd Representatives would be an amazing thing to think about. Or the fact that Texas would have over a hundred Representatives.
Once in a while, the Times does challenge your imagination, and I would put this in the five-star category.