Editorial | Fix the Legislature

If you voted yesterday and live north of Walnut Street, chances are you voted for Anthony Williams for state Senate.

Why? Because he was the only person running. Not a single other person even bothered to spend the time and money to get on the ballot. In the 188th Pennsylvania General Assembly district, the only opposition came from the Green Party - the Republicans didn't even field a candidate.

Which isn't really a surprise, considering he would just become another one of the 252 other legislators in Harrisburg. And Williams wasn't alone; 51 of the 203 candidates for General Assembly ran unopposed, as did five of the 25 state senators up for re-election.

Such little competition is a huge problem for Pennsylvania, and the source is obvious: We have the second-largest Legislature in the country. Downsizing the Legislature would make an enormous difference for Pennsylvania, and it's not even a new idea. Rhode Island successfully slashed its legislature in the '90s, and Massachusetts and Illinois did the same in earlier decades.

The $341 million Pennsylvania spends on its legislature's operations budget amounts to $28 per resident - meaning major savings if the Legislature is downsized. Even including inflation, the cost of the Legislature has skyrocketed by 101 percent since 1985.

But beyond cost savings, a slimmer Legislature would also serve Pennsylvanians more effectively.

With so many assemblymen - Philadelphia alone has 28 - it's nearly impossible for any single representative to wield any kind of power unless he is in a leadership position. The state government would be much more equitable if its legislature's power weren't so concentrated.

When our new Legislature takes over in January, reducing the body's size should be at the top of the agenda. At the bare minimum, it would bring some much needed competition - or any competition, in some cases.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.