— The bandwagon for reducing the size of the Pennsylvania Legislature is moving again.

It’s about time.

Pennsylvania has one of the largest and most expensive legislatures in the country – rivaled only by California’s.

Several state lawmakers have introduced bills that would trim the size of the General Assembly.

The latest such plan comes from Berks County Democrat Judy Schwank, a senator whose bill would cut 83 seats from the state House and 10 from the Senate.

Currently, there are 203 House members and 50 senators.

Each House district is home to about 62,000 residents, and Senate districts include about 250,000 residents.

As reported here Sunday by PA Independent, Schwank’s plan would mean each House member represents about 104,000 residents and each senator about 315,000.

“Modern technology allows people to remain in constant, even immediate contact with their legislators,” Schwank said, “and our legislative framework should reflect the fact that we don’t stay in touch by telegraph and horse buggies anymore.”

Three Republican lawmakers – Sens. John Pippy of Philadelphia County and Dave Argall of Schuylkill County, and House Speaker Samuel Smith of Jefferson County – had introduced legislation previously aimed at cutting the size of one or both chambers.

Specifically ...

* Pippy’s plan would cut the Senate to 40 members and the House to 161.

* Argall’s plan would chop the House by 50 seats gradually between 2013 and 2053 – 10 seats every 10 years, to correspond with the redistricting process. The Senate eventually would drop to 45 seats.

* Smith proposes reducing the House to 153 members, but not cutting the Senate.

Smith spokesman Steve Miskin told PA Independent that cutting the size of the Legislature is not about potential cost-savings, but rather to create a more efficient legislative body.

We would hope any action taken should have both goals in mind.

We agree with the advocacy group Democracy Rising PA, which has been calling for a state constitutional convention to begin the reduction process.

And we fear that the group’s executive director, Tim Potts, may be right when he says such proposals are attempts to placate residents crying for savings and won’t lead to real action in Harrisburg.

“They are trying to look like they are doing something without actually doing it,” Potts said.

In our web poll last week, 90 percent of the more than 650 people who responded said they support reducing the size of the state Legislature.

Our polling is not designed to be scientific, but those results are certainly one-sided.

Similar polling across the state in recent years has likewise shown strong support for such a movement.

During the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, we met with both candidates – Republican Tom Corbett and Democrat Dan Onorato – and asked each about reducing the size of the Legislature.

Both agreed that something needs to be done, but only Onorato had a designed plan and a clear timeline for launching an effort within four years.

That’s one of the reasons we supported Onorato with our endorsement.

But now the duty falls to Corbett, as the elected governor, to make reducing the size of Pennsylvania government a priority – right along with cutting the budget and privatizing the liquor industry.

A governor willing to pull millions in funding from schools and community service agencies should be just as willing to stand up to other elected officials over such a commonsense approach to increasing government efficiency and reducing costs.

Potts is skeptical that senators and House members will pursue with sincerity action that could jeopardize their owns jobs.

We say each of them should go to Harrisburg to perform the duties his or her constituents support.

And the people clearly favor cutting the size, scope and cost of our General Assembly.

Click here to subscribe to The Tribune-Democrat print edition.

Click here to subscribe to The Tribune-Democrat e-edition.