It’s the opinion of many Pennsylvania residents that a smaller General Assembly would enable it to be more efficient and possibly discourage some of the intense partisanship that currently stymies the legislative body.

Such opinions certainly are valid and worth debating, considering all that residents have seen and heard coming out of Harrisburg for many years, especially over the past decade.

That said, commonwealth residents have grounds for being pessimistic that they will see a smaller Legislature in their lifetime. Frankly, last week’s discussion in Harrisburg regarding cutting the General Assembly’s size likely will go nowhere in terms of producing that result.

Some state residents probably feel that lawmakers last week shouldn’t have wasted their time talking about the issue, since a reduction isn’t likely to happen.

But the topic should continue to be discussed because a smaller General Assembly would be much less costly for this money-strapped state.

With a smaller Legislature, it would be better if the state had a designated legislative window of, say, 100 days, to force lawmakers to deal with issues expeditiously, rather than become bogged down for months by unproductive political haggling.

That is desirable even now.

Other states with designated legislative windows manage to get their work done. Pennsylvania lawmakers could do likewise, if forced to do so.

It was at a House State Government Committee informational hearing on a handful of pending bills on Aug. 9 that the issue of a smaller Legislature again reared its head.

At that hearing, House Speaker Sam Smith said his plan for reducing the House to 153 members from the current 203 would improve members’ understanding, communications and ability to build consensus.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mark Mustio, R-Allegheny, discussed three bills he has authored that offer downsizing approaches.

But another lawmaker called cutting the Legislature’s size a “terrible idea,” contending that it would reduce the range of political opinions currently represented in the state capital.

Then there’s the issue of how much rural clout might suffer under any smaller-Legislature plan implemented.

Pennsylvania needs to try to save money on all fronts, including its legislative function. The General Assembly’s size and penchant for stubborn partisanship wastes many millions of taxpayer dollars every year.

The headline in the Aug. 10 Butler Eagle dealing with the State Government Committee session said “Pa. House will look at shrinking itself.”

Unfortunately, considering Harrisburg’s current mind-set, “look” is probably as far as the issue will go.