Another year, another attempt to shrink the size of Pennsylvania’s Legislature.

Don’t mistake our tone for a lack of enthusiasm. The concept of reducing the size of the Legislature — which is the largest in the nation and the third highest paid behind New York and California — has merit.

But after years of discussion on the matter and no results, it’s easy to remain skeptical that progress will be made.

Nevertheless, state Rep. Valerie Gaydos, of Allegheny County, recently introduced a bill to shrink the number of state legislative districts from 203 to 151.

Among the arguments made for downsizing are that a smaller number of seats in the House of Representatives would cut costs for taxpayers and improve the legislative process by making it easier for representatives to reach consensus.

For such a thing to happen, identical bills would need to be passed in two consecutive legislative sessions and then have the public vote on it in a statewide referendum.

If recent years are any indication, those supporting the measure shouldn’t hold their breath.

In the past four years, the concept has been brought before the Legislature several times, but has never gained enough support to move forward.

Not all of Butler County’s representatives are on board with the proposal. State Rep. Marci Mustello makes valid points in her concern that reducing the number of legislative districts could negatively affect rural areas, some of which she said are already neglected. She notes that by eliminating districts, some residents might be left to feel as if they’ve no one to turn to for assistance.

Her argument is valid — and the reduction of districts should be handled proportionately, that is, assuming the Legislature ever moves on the proposal.

However, it remains a fact that if Pennsylvania’s Legislature were shrunk to 151 members, it would still be larger than the state houses of New York, Texas and California — which, respectively, have seven million, 16 million and 27 million more residents than the Keystone State.

Over the past year, we’ve written on this page about struggles in the state to allocate resources for everything from the costs of special education and higher education funding to flooding, providing safe drinking water and making up for a lack of firefighters across the state.

So, while getting a referendum before voters on reducing the state Legislature might seem like a pipe dream, there are obviously ways that our money can be better spent.