Pennsylvania has discussed reducing the size of our legislature, but has never gotten anywhere. I think it is part of the psyche at least in the original 13 that we expect to know our legislators, especially in New England but only somewhat diminishing as you move southward.
I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing having such large legislatures. In the case of NH, you can have a personal relationship with your state legislator, as they will only represent a few thousand people.
In CA, with just 80 assemblymembers, each represents a half million people (until fairly recently, that’s what the average U.S. Congressman had as a constituency). That’s so ludicrously out of whack, it’s no wonder the only people most of them (and most are Dems) pay attention to is big labor (big gubmint unions, that is).
You can’t have a personal relationship with a legislator having such a massive constituency. The number of legislators in CA probably should be increased tenfold. Even 800 assemblymembers would be too few (having 50k constituents). Most of these numbers of legislators were set when they had much, much smaller populations. In CA, they’ve had the same 40 Senators since 1863 (when it had just above 400k population) and the same 80 Assemblymembers since 1854 (when it had only 200-250k). So when that number went into effect for the Assembly, each member would’ve ideally had just 2,500 or so constituents (although they were more based on county, so that number could obviously vary). California would need an Assembly of sixteen THOUSAND members (and a Senate of 4,000 (!)) in order to equal that same number of constituents today.
Goes to show you how massively unrepresented most of the country is and far removed from their so-called “elected officials.”