Jeff Jacoby notes that America's House of Representatives isn't even as democratic as Iraq's Parliament to be.

Divide Iraq's 25 million people by the number of members in the new parliament (275), and the result is one legislator for every 91,000 people. That will make Iraq's government almost exactly as representative as Great Britain's -- each member of the House of Commons also represents, on average, about 91,000 citizens. Other democracies are comparable. The ratio for Italy's Chamber of Deputies is 1 to 92,000. For the French National Assembly, 1 to 104,000. For Canada's House of Commons, 1 to 105,000. For the new Afghan House of the People, 1 to 114,000. For Germany's Bundestag, 1 to 136,000.

But in the US House of Representatives, each lawmaker represents, on average, a staggering 674,000 citizens.

Jacoby notes that we have added Representatives as population increased, but for some reason stopped doing so when we reached 435 back in 1910. Since then the population has tripled.

Enlarging the House to around 1,300 members -- triple its current size -- would doubtless take some getting used to. But the benefits would more than outweigh any inconvenience.

Jacoby doesn't mention that the freeze on new House members almost coincides with the institution of the federal income tax in 1913. I wonder if politicians have resisted Representative increases because it would mean taking home a smaller piece of the fiscal pie.