California is in danger of losing a House seat after adding 2.3 million people

[Celerity]

8. Yes, and one of the ways to gauge the size of the increase in the number of House members is called

The Wyoming Rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule

The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently Wyoming. Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, each U.S. state is guaranteed at least one representative. If the disparity between the population of the most and least populous states continues to grow, the disproportionality of the House will continue to increase unless the House (whose size has been fixed at 435 since 1913) is expanded.

The Wyoming Rule is not a large enough increase in my opinion. I think it needs to go to at least 1000 (ending in an odd number of course so there can be no ties).

If we had the same amount of House members as the UK House of Commons does, when adjusted for population, our House would have over 3,200 members. Compared to the German Bundestag, we would have over 2,800. If compared to Denmark and Norway, we would have over 10,000 House members, and compared to Sweden, over 12,000.

In terms of pure size (as some might say 1001 (1101 counting the Senate) is unwieldy (to which I say tosh) the UK Parliament right now has a total of 1,443 members, China has 2,980 members.

The only nation in the entire world with a worse member to population ratio than the US is India, and only them, China, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are even close to us. All the rest of the nations have at least half or less the number of people represented per member.