

This is mixing up two related but distinct ideas.
The electoral college system leads to a winner-take-all for the electoral votes of any given state, with the exception of Nebraska. Passing a Wyoming rule or something similar to expand the size of the House, and increasing the number of electoral votes from 538 to 900 or whatever won’t change that basic dynamic.
Yeah, yeah, Wyoming has a house seat elected by a population of 590,000, a little bit smaller than the national average house district population of 780,000, but that’s not nearly as big of a source of voting power discrepancy compared to the existence of the Senate, or the winner-take-all phenomenon that happens in the Electoral College.
So yes, I agree that the Apportionment Act needs to be repealed/modified, but don’t agree it should be as high a priority as electoral college reform.

Here. 218 is a majority of the 435 seats.
2026: Current count is at least 40 seats flipped from R to D, from 214 to 254 called, and plausibly 45 flips for 259. President’s party loses the largest number of seats since 1994, loses control of House.
2022: President’s party loses 9 seats and house control, 222-213.
2018: President’s party loses 41 seats and House control, 235-199.
2014: President’s party loses 13 more seats, despite already not having House control, expanding opposition control to 247-188.
2010: President’s party loses 63 seats and House control, 242-193.
2006: President’s party loses 31 seats and House control, 233-202.
2002: President’s party gains 6 seats, expanding House control to 229-204.
1998: President’s party gains 5 seats, narrowing the opposing party’s control to 223-211.
1994: President’s party loses 54 seats and House control, 230-204.
Before that, House elections dynamics were a bit different. National party identity wasn’t as strong, and split ticket voting was more common, so Democrats held House control even as Republicans won the White House 5 out of 6 elections.