It is not the number; it is the process.

Under the Constitution, every state would by design get two Senators and at least 1 House member per the Constitution. So, how would you get "equal representation" for the people of Wyoming just under 600k and South Dakota at 760K, using those two states as an example. By definition, it will never be equal.

The current number of 435 was fixed back in 1913 and so would require a new statute to change.

So presently, 747,000 people qualify a state for a House seat. If we used the original number, it would require around 10,000 members of the House. And the proportional change in votes at the various state levels would make little difference.

The number of House members can increase if an additional state is added, but then it gets readjusted at the next census back to 435. So, I am not sure where you are going with this proposal. If you did massively increase the House, the only way to make that work is to make adopt proportional representation for the House districts to the electoral college and winner takes all for the Senate seats as is done I think in Maine.

What you don't want to do is skew the electoral college by gaming the size of the House. That would be wrong.