The New York Times had an op-ed this morning arguing for a larger House of Representatives, something several of us here have argued for doing, with many of the same arguments.  

This disparity increases the influence of lobbyists and special interests: the more constituents one has, the easier it is for money to outshine individual voices. And it means that representatives have a harder time connecting with the people back in their districts.

The California legislature can also be improved with smaller districts.  How can a state senator honestly expect to represent 900,000 constituents?

True, more members means more agendas, legislation and debates.

I actually disagree with this.  In an earlier discussion I came up with what I felt was a viable solution:  The House is responsible for its own rules, so it can create a system where there is something like a House Steering Committee, which is a selection of representatives from the house, that functions similarly to how the house functions at present.  The difference is that this HSC handles all the debate, amendment, etc, (post responsible committee) and when settled, recommends the bill to a full house vote, up or down, with no amendment or debate.  

Your thoughts?