IMO the House has its issues already.
The main issue you'd have with more House members is how long it would take to rise to power in a 1,000 member House, get good committee assignments and otherwise shine.
Plus if you think the various petty micropolitics causes gridlock now, wait 'til you get a bigger herd of cats from a wider political spectrum.


IMO, more House members become easier to bribe b/c they're such small districts that a little extra cash could go a long way.
Count me as one of the folks who think
Citizens United pretty much ensures the current status-quo will continue. Money isn't everything, but it certainly helps.
OTOH the way districts have been gerrymandered to hell and gone here in Texas, splitting up some of the districts where you could actually get some community participation/engagement that would favor less corporate-minded candidates would make politics a tad more locally-centered.
The big issues I have with HoR are the two-year term doesn't give enough time to really consider national or international issues, you're always in fundraising/campaigning mode, until you've been there for six years or so.
Once you get past that threshold, you've got your donor list worked out, staff in place keeping tabs on polls and hot-button-issues, and it becomes inside baseball on the Hill with occasional touch-base visits.
The problem you have with the House is that it leads nowhere but the House.
In the Senate, you have an outside chance of getting noticed. So the game for Reps is hustling in the crab bucket for good committee slots, thus a lot of log-rolling to go and get along instead of what might be best for their district and the countryat large.
Lately, the trend in presidential candidates has been state governors or senators.
There's exceptions- LBJ, George HW Bush as ex-Representative Presidents, but they prove the rule.