Pennsylvania's 253-member General Assembly is the second-largest state legislature in the United States, behind only New Hampshire's 424-member General Court.

New Hampshire legislators are paid $100 a year. Pennsylvanian lawmakers get paid $87,180.

Of course, that isn't the only difference between them — lawmakers in the Granite State work roughly 45 legislative days per annum, while Pennsylvania legislators are in session for between 50 and 70 days on average and work yet more days with their constituents.

That doesn't make New Hampshire unique. In fact, Pennsylvania's General Assembly is divergent among American state legislatures.

California, Michigan and New York are the only states in the union with a truly full-time state legislature, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the other 46 states, legislators work fewer days, have smaller staffs, are paid less, need to have other jobs to support themselves or some combination of the four.

Even among the full-time state legislatures, though, Pennsylvania stands alone. New York, the state with the next-largest, full-time legislature, has 40 fewer members despite a 53% larger population.

To some, the Pennsylvania House size — 203 members — evokes images of an idyllic society where everyone knows their representative. To others, it's a bloated, expensive and unnecessary system.

State Rep. Marci Mustello, R-11th, has a foot in each camp. One problem with the current state House's size is the voting power of the heavily populated southeastern part of the state, she said, particularly in comparison with the less populous central and western segments.

“I really underestimated the number of representatives in the southeast, and when they vote as a bloc it could determine the outcome of a vote,” she said.

Still, she sees the size of the state House as more of a positive than a negative. A potential issue Mustello envisions with a reduction in the size of the House is the increased distance some voters — particularly in more rural communities — might have to travel to see their representatives.

“The positive is easy access to the representatives. You look at Butler, our office is very popular, the people know where to come when they need help with any issue, so we're easily accessible and I think that's what our forefathers had envisioned, that people had access to their representatives, to their senators,” Mustello said.

“It's not often that you can get in touch with your congressman, because they have a larger territory to cover, whereas state representatives have a more condensed area and we're more easily accessible, which is good for the constituents and the residents,” she said.

But state Rep. Tim Bonner, R-8th, disagreed. He is co-sponsor of a resolution that would reduce the size of the House from 203 to 151 members, identical to one passed by both the state House and Senate during the 2015-16 legislative session.

He argued that, because the changes would be proportionate, most of the change would be in the urban Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas, with little change to Mercer or Butler counties.

“I'm of the belief that our state legislature, which is the largest, most expensive state legislature in the nation, is too large and too expensive, and I would like to see it reduced in size and cost,” Bonner said.

“I know New Hampshire has the largest state legislature. They have 400 members, I believe, but they are for the most part volunteers without pay who work part-time as needed,” he said. “But when you consider size and cost together, we are the largest, most expensive state legislature in that nation.”

He also averred that decreasing the size of the state House would allow it to work more efficiently, lightening the logjam of legislators each bill and resolution has to get through while ensuring quality representation.

“Relative to Pennsylvania, I think we can be a more effective body, working with a smaller, more efficient legislature that would achieve a greater level of confidence among the public relative to representation and the manner in which we perform our duties,” he added.

Mustello said the current level of representation ensures the views of residents in Butler County can be heard by the representatives from places like Luzerne or Philadelphia counties. But, she added, there could be a bill to amend the size of the legislature that she might find acceptable, if it ensured the western half of the state would not be disproportionately affected.

“In theory, it sounds great,” she said. “But, when you think about it, you're throwing out people from the western part of the state where we could really be starving for representatives out here. They won't have voices of reason from out here in rural counties, and that's what I fear.”

Because a bill amending the size of the legislature would be a constitutional amendment, it must follow the lengthy process of being approved by both houses, advertised in at least two newspapers in each county, approved by both houses again in the subsequent two-year legislative session, advertised yet again and then voted upon in the following general election.

But with the current proposal to shrink the state House stuck in committee — unsurprisingly, given the number of bills passed by the General Assembly has dropped by more than half since 1975, according to Spotlight PA — it appears such an amendment is, at the very least, half a decade off from becoming reality.