The only sensible way to shrink the PA legislature, if we’re doing that, is to go unicameral. If we really want to get rid of 50 political seats, they should be the 50 seats of the state Senate, not a random 50 seats in the state House.
More politicians per constituent is more representative of the state’s diverse interests (though not as representative as proportional representation, what with these aggressively gerrymandered seats), so keeping the state House as the single unicameral legislature would be best. I definitely hear Sam Smith’s point about the difficulty of getting so many people to agree, but the better solution to the coordination problems of a large legislature is stronger political parties and more log-rolling.
Here’s my big question though – are GOPers actually going to self-derp their way to a House minority with this? How does shrinking the legislature even benefit Republicans? I see some Democrats saying this is a power grab or something, but that just seems wrong. The house of the legislature in which Democrats currently are more competitive is the state Senate – the one with fewer seats and bigger districts. Obviously much depends on how you draw them, but it seems pretty obvious to me why larger districts help Democrats. Am I missing something?