Posted on 10/29/2009 9:33:00 AM PDT by RBW in PA
HARRISBURG – Senator David G. Argall (R-29) announced legislation today that would reduce the size of the state legislature by more than 20 percent. Argall’s proposal would eliminate 10 House seats each decade through 2053. It would also eliminate five Senate seats. The legislation would ultimately trim the size of the Senate from 50 members to 45 and the House of Representatives from 203 members to 153.
(Excerpt) Read more at poconorecord.com ...
We’ve needed this for years in Pa. We have one of the largest legislatures and certainly not the largest population. Lets see if it even gets out of committee....
If any group of people need to have their jobs eliminated it’s legislators. It would be funny seeing them line up for unemployment benefits.
Just look at California. There are only 40 state senate districts for a population of around 35 million. We all know how disfunctional the CA legislature is.
my only fear is that it will reduce the number of red county seats and give more power to liberals in Philadelphia. Certainly can’t argue with the cost numbers though.
Why allow the process to take 40 years? Why not simply require the cuts and redistricting by 2013?
I don’t foresee this getting anywhere.
I don’t see how it’s a good idea. My state (TN) is roughly the equivalent with respect to the size of the legislature vs. how many people represent each district as PA is), at least on the House side of things (we have half the population, 6.2 million vs. 12.4 million — PA has 50 Senators and 203 Representatives, TN has 33 Senators and 99 Representatives). If anything, you’re shortchanged in your number of Senators, which probably should be closer to 75. Shrinking the number of legislators merely makes them more unaccountable to individuals.
Yeah as C19fan says just look at CA. Their Senate is way too small, there are more congressman than state senators.
It’s a bit unintuitive to say ‘we need more legislators’ but it’s a fact the smaller the chamber the less accountable it is. Cutting the number just gives more power to the ones that remain.
To save money you can just slash the massive office budgets for legislators.
For that matter, you could reduce a state to just a handful of people in charge if you wanted efficiency. Founding Fathers didn’t want that kind of efficiency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.