The existing gap between what Americans want and what our politicians deem best appears to be growing larger. The methods by which students have been directly involved in political issues is probably limited to protests, ballots and Facebook. It seems that our only personal connection with those in Congress is through our favorite pundits on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Most of us are fed up with conflicts that have been going on between politicians. Sometimes, we feel as though we're out of the picture. That is not to say, however, that we don't have a voice. We're witnesses to our politicians' plunders and are often their biggest critics.

As we begin the 112th congress, many people are hoping to close the gap between regular Americans and uptight cronies in Washington. According to a New York Times op-ed by Dalton Conley and Jacqueline Stevens, the constinuents' importance in the government's agenda seems to be dwindling. In the article, they ask if Congress is big enough to address the needs of our generation. According to Conley and Stevens, representation in the House is severely underestimated and not up-to-date with America's huge population. For this reason, there are claims that the House has fallen out of touch with its younger voters and is more attentive to the interests of lobbyists and corporations rather than the public.

Some of the statistics behind these claims are pretty scary.

If we take a step back to 1787, when the Constitution was first written, representation in the House was determined by state population. There would be one representative for every 60,000 individuals within a state. A census would be taken every 10 years, in which representation would be re-evaluated to accommodate the nation's increasing population.

U.S. population spiked in the early 1900s. New states were added to the map. During this wave of immigration, Congress suddenly placed a cap on the number of representatives in the House. Nativists were afraid that immigrants would take political power. In the 1920s, 433 members represented a U.S. population of 30 million. In 2011, 435 members represent a population of 300 million.

Despite huge discrepancies between representation and population, is a bigger Congress necessarily better?

At first glance, the answer may seem to be yes. The task of appeasing America's young and diverse communities is a daunting one, where the problems of our nation's economy override the needs of the average blue-collar American. Although every problem has its importance, some must be addressed first.

However, an overpopulated House presents more negative consequences than valid solutions. Congress simply can not handle more representatives. Even with a bigger congress, everyone's specific interests cannot realistically be fulfilled. We would certainly have more members, yet this would result in a bunch of representatives with very different views and very different causes.

An increase in representation may, in fact, divide congressional parties, leading to inefficiency. Although diversity is very important in political viewpoints, when it comes to creating a productive agenda, we must be realistic about the potential of our goals and the ability to put aside our differences. Not all ideas for legislative reform will take hold within a fortnight. The strategy and labor required to put these ideas into effect requires collective effort from our politicians. Already, getting our politicians to work together is like pulling teeth.

We always hope that issues within small communities will be brought to national attention. While these issues remain important in a House with better representation, they will still be put aside once the budget and other large pieces of legislation start rolling in.

Additionally, a considerable amount of money will be needed to fund the campaigns of the many additional representatives who will run for office. Just because the number of Congresspeople is increasing doesn't mean that the amount of money in our pockets will increase too. Will people actually be willing to donate for these campaigns? Running these elections would also be time consuming. Additionally, the money used for the salaries of these extra representatives could be invested in other programs that demand attention, such as increasing the affordability of college education.

I also can't see how having more representatives could positively affect our voter participation. Elections will become more complex as more candidates feel the incentive to fill supposed vacancies within the House.

The 200 or so representatives that Congress acquires from these elections can result in a shortage in the seating available within Congress's chamber. We would need to rebuild the U.S. Capitol to fit everyone in one building. Once again, this requires time and more money. Neither of which we have in excess.

Not all bodies of government are perfect, yet isn't that the reason we have democratic representation? An equal distribution of representatives would give political opportunities to minorities, worthy causes, and aspiring youth such as ourselves. It is not wrong to be hopeful, but it's an irresponsibility to let our Congress fail.