--- title: "Congressional | A Government That Works for the People" canonical: "https://govthatworks.org/congress" description: "A visual demonstration of the House of Representatives reforms proposed in A Government That Works for the People." --- Chapter 7 · Chapter 8 # How would Congress change? In plain English: the book would make the House larger, let states experiment with districts that elect several representatives proportionally, require neutral redistricting rules, and make it harder for congressional leadership to keep a bill from ever receiving a recorded vote. Current House facts + book proposal · visual demonstration Current policy vs. the book ## Representation changes before legislative procedure changes. The proposal first enlarges the House and changes the menu of district systems, then adds rules intended to make it harder for a majority to avoid a recorded decision. Current framework Federal law fixes the House at 435 voting Representatives, and states with more than one Representative use single-member congressional districts. → Book proposal The book proposes an initial House of 585 seats and would allow states to use three-to-five-member districts with proportional ranked-choice voting. What it could mean for people Average House districts would be smaller. In states adopting multimember districts, a voter could help elect more than one representative from a larger shared district. Current framework Congressional redistricting is carried out under state-specific systems, subject to federal constitutional and statutory limits; some states use commissions and others use legislatures. → Book proposal Amendment One requires independent commissions and national criteria including equal population, nondiscrimination, communities of interest, compactness, transparency, and partisan fairness. What it could mean for people The people drawing congressional boundaries would be institutionally separated from the legislators who run in those districts. Litigation over the new fairness standard could increase. Current framework A bill can fail to receive a floor vote because of committee or leadership control, and Senate rules can require more than a simple majority to end debate in many circumstances. → Book proposal A majority of the full membership of either chamber could force debate and a recorded vote on a measure that has sat without action for the required period. This is a vote in Congress, not a referendum. What it could mean for people Members could be forced to put a yes-or-no position on the public record. It could also increase message votes designed mainly to create political pressure. Current framework sources: [U.S. House](https://www.house.gov/representatives) and [2 U.S.C. § 2c](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A2%20section%3A2c%20edition%3Aprelim%29). Book proposal: Chapters 7–9 and Amendments One and Three. Representation ## From 435 seats to an initial House of 585. The proposal adds 150 seats and then uses a population-linked formula after each census rather than freezing the chamber permanently at 585. Current law**435** Voting representatives in the House, fixed by statute. Book proposal**585** Initial House size, followed by an automatic population-linked formula after each census. Current 435 seats150 additional seats in the proposed initial House In plain English ### Why add House seats? The House has 435 voting members today. The book starts at 585, which means 150 more representatives. The basic idea is that each representative would speak for fewer people on average, while the larger chamber would also make three-to-five-member districts possible in most states. All 50 states ## How a 585-seat House changes each state’s delegation. The current column uses the official 2020 apportionment. The proposed column applies the book’s 585-seat example to 2020 resident populations with the Huntington–Hill method of equal proportions. The book notes that official apportionment populations would be used in practice and could shift a small number of seats. Proposed seatsCurrent seatsSeat change Find a state Tap or click any state for detailsTile map · positions are arranged geographically but are not to scale. Selected state**California** Current House seats**52** Book’s 585-seat example**70** Change**+18** Average residents per seat**760,350 → 564,832** **761,169**Average apportioned district population after the 2020 Census under the 435-seat House. **≈565,000**Approximate national average district size in the book’s initial 585-seat House. **50 states**Every state appears in the map above; no state loses representation in the 585-seat example. Optional proportional districts ## 3D Live Congressional Election & District Simulator The national 3D map contains all 435 voting House districts from the Census Bureau’s 2025 cartographic boundaries for the 119th Congress. All 50 states and all districts are selectable through native pickers. Current-district information includes representative, party, committees, office phone and land/water area. The public House Clerk roster snapshot is published October 1, 2026; Census boundaries and area are the 2025 cartographic file. Clicking a district zooms to its possible reform grouping; controls compare current boundaries, illustrative groupings or both, with rotation, top view and zoom. The 585-seat state figures preserve the existing Huntington–Hill example using 2020 resident population. Reform examples geographically group existing districts into three-to-five-member districts in larger states, and one- or two-member examples in smaller states, totaling 585 seats. The book also permits retaining single-member districts in small states. These are illustrative overlays, not official proposed boundaries or equal-population, Voting Rights Act or contiguity certifications. Population adjustment estimates use current district counts, not a census-block analysis. Independent commissions would need to redraw and review the lines under the book’s standards. Visitors rank up to five of eight fictional candidates and may quick-fill a random personal ballot. Each run uses newly randomized synthetic weighted ballots. A sample of 16,000 synthetic ballots represents an electorate of roughly 112,000–148,000 votes, plus the visitor’s ballot. No winner is selected in advance. The transferable-vote count runs after first preferences report, using a Droop quota of floor(valid votes / (seats + 1)) + 1, fractional surplus transfers and lowest-candidate elimination. Tied totals use a random draw. The simulator elects the selected grouping’s actual number of example seats, and offers live returns, transfer events, a finish-count control and another-election control. It is educational, not a forecast of actual candidates or polling. Source: [Census 2025 cartographic boundaries](https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/2025/geo/carto-boundary-file.html). Alaska and Hawaii use geographic insets. DC and territorial nonvoting delegations are outside this 435/585 voting-seat comparison. Direct link: [3D Congress simulator](https://govthatworks.org/congress#proportional-live-simulator) Procedure ## The book also changes how Congress handles stalled legislation. Representation rules ### Independent redistricting Congressional districts would be drawn by independent commissions or equivalent rules-based processes, using national standards and a prohibition on favoring or disfavoring a party or incumbent. **Plain English:** politicians would not be allowed to draw congressional lines simply to help a party or an incumbent. The process would have to use an independent commission or an equivalent rules-based system. Decision rules ### Force a public vote This does not mean a referendum or a nationwide public vote. It means a vote inside Congress. If a majority of the full House or Senate wanted action on a bill that leadership had left sitting, that majority could force the chamber to hold public debate and then a recorded roll-call vote, so each member's yes or no would be on the record. The plan also proposes automatic appropriations when Congress misses a funding deadline. **Referendum:** voters themselves decide a question on a ballot. **This proposal is not a referendum.** **Sources and scope.** Current House size and 2020 apportionment figures come from the U.S. House and U.S. Census Bureau. The 585-seat House, state examples, multimember districts, ranked-choice method, and procedural changes summarize Chapters 7–9 of *A Government That Works for the People*. The five-seat example is a simplified visualization of the book's proportionality explanation, not a real election result. [U.S. House: Representatives](https://www.house.gov/representatives) · [U.S. Census Bureau: 2020 apportionment](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/dec/2020-apportionment-data.html) The Strongest Counterargument & Our Response ### Best case against Expanding the House and allowing multi-member STV districts could make ballots and counting less familiar, enlarge Congress without guaranteeing better governance, and raise equipment and transition costs. ### The author's response The book separates House size from electoral method: House expansion is a statute, while states may choose certified multi-member ranked systems. It pairs the transition with equipment standards and public audits. ### What remains uncertain How voters adapt to multi-seat ranked ballots and how parties change nomination strategies would need evaluation after adoption. ## V90 district recommendations and live geographic returns The simulator compares feasible combinations of three-, four- and five-member groupings, preserving each state's proposed seat total. It scores estimated population balance, polygon compactness and geographic gap connections. It does not use representative or party data to choose boundaries. The resulting larger-state examples include 38 three-member, 75 four-member and 31 five-member groups, plus the small-state one-/two-member cases. A selected area's recommendation reports how many layouts were compared and the state's resulting seat mix. This is a heuristic comparison based on whole current districts and a population proxy, not a certified optimal or legally compliant districting plan. Random ballots are generated in batches as first preferences report. Local map sections are illustrative equal mapped-area subdivisions of the selected reform grouping, with one section per seat. First-preference leads light the map in candidate colors. During ranked transfers, colors follow actual retained-plus-continuing local vote allocation; eliminated candidates' votes transfer and elected candidates retain their quota shares. Local colored leads do not independently elect representatives. The whole reform grouping elects its allotted seats by proportional ranked choice. A local map and candidate legend remain visible during the count and with final results. ## V93 click targets and local candidates Native SVG transforms keep the click geometry aligned with the visible map. Selecting any current district opens its information and the full reform grouping, with a separate current-district close-up control. The gold outline identifies the shared reform district. Numbered local areas match an always-visible area key identifying section numbers, county-area names and fictional candidates' homes. County names come from the Census 2025 county boundaries intersecting the current districts; the named portion is the county with the largest mapped overlap, not a population ranking. Each reform grouping has its own stable fictional candidate slate. Candidate cards show the candidate's home area and the whole reform district they would serve. Candidates contest the shared multi-seat area, so viewing another current district within that same reform grouping retains its common candidate slate. Hovering or focusing a candidate highlights their home section. Starting the count opens the full reform grouping. The main map and labeled count/result maps change to candidate colors using actual reported and transferred vote allocations. All elected representatives serve the entire reform grouping; local sections do not independently award seats. V93: Each illustrative grouping has the same number of local reporting sections as its seats. Enlarged section previews support small urban districts. Local fills update from counted candidate support and transfers; all elected members still serve the whole shared district. Sections use equal mapped-area geometry rather than population-equal redistricting. Random ballots are generated during reporting; the user contributes one ballot and does not choose the outcome. V93: Each local home area has 3–6 fictional candidates in the shared ranked-choice contest. The map remains visible through reporting, transfers and results, with an adjacent panel showing local or district totals, quota, seat calls and elected/eliminated status. Pause/resume and finish controls are available beside the map. Candidate slates are stable; ballots use fresh cryptographic randomness during reporting. ## V94 district-wide seats and local candidate homes The simulator defaults to separately numbered district-wide ranked seat contests. Each seat has 3–6 fictional candidates with home counties drawn from the county coverage of its reform grouping, including Fresno and Madera where present. Everyone in the district can rank any or every candidate for every seat. Each seat uses majority elimination and transfers; all winners serve the entire shared district. The map colors the whole district for the selected seat. Book mode preserves Chapter 7 proportional STV, with one shared ranked ballot and quotas to fill all seats. These are explicitly different election methods; the book text is unchanged. Random ballots are generated during reporting and user preferences are not guaranteed winners. V96: Both ballot modes preserve explicit preference numbers. Book overview shows the whole district with provisional leaders and elected members. Fictional voters use fresh unbiased random rankings; user choices are one ballot and do not guarantee election.