The migratory swallows that famously return on the same day each year to Capistrano, California, were due Sunday.

Another perennial event, in this case an exercise in futility, already has appeared at the state Capitol in Harrisburg.

Republican state Sen. Dan Laughlin, of Erie, circulated a memo last week, seeking cosponsors for an idea so good that it can’t pass — reducing the size of the General Assembly.

Laughlin might well find some cosponsors. He wants to reduce the size of the House alone, leaving the Senate intact, so his fellow senators might think that’s a fine idea.

On the other hand, it’s also a poison pill that would ensure the measure’s death in the House.

Under Laughlin’s proposed constitutional amendment, the 203-seat House would shrink to 150, a ratio of three representatives for each of 50 senators.

That, Laughlin said, would “produce savings, increase efficiency, and … promote public confidence in our institution.”

So it would. And reducing the size of the Legislature would not adversely affect representative democracy.

California, for example, has more than three times as many residents as Pennsylvania, 39 million, with a legislature of just 80 House members and 40 senators.

Texas has 30 million residents, 150 state representatives and 31 state senators.

Laughlin told his colleagues that states similar in size to Pennsylvania have smaller legislatures.

Each of 118 Illinois representatives has 108,581 constituents, for example, and each of 99 Ohio House members represents 119,186 people.

Each of Pennsylvania’s 203 House members represents just 64,053 people.

But Laughlin’s preferred method isn’t the only way to achieve the savings and better governance that would result from a smaller legislature.

The House easily could be reduced to 101 seats without sacrificing representation in the electronic media age.

And, unlike the U.S. Senate — which was created to solve the representation dispute between large and small states and was crucial to adopting the constitution — the state Senate resolves no such issue. It is simply a smaller chamber with larger districts.

Benjamin Franklin himself wanted Pennsylvania to have just one legislative chamber, and Nebraska has gotten by with just one since 1936.

So, options abound. But Pennsylvanians may rest assured that the self-interested Legislature will choose the easiest one — nothing.

— Republican & Herald, Pottsville via TNS