[Mike Irwin]

"If every hit depended on working out a compromise among hundreds of hitters, they'd only ever bunt, and that not very often..."

Or, everyone would pile in amazing amounts of crap as both adjuncts to the bill and as riders, especially riders.

If there are only going to be 3 or maybe 5 laws passed in a legislative session, you think the're just going to be tiny little piddling things?

What would be the drawback to driving in as much as possible in such a bill?

Not much, really.

There's no line item veto, so just as today a bill that the President wants might be weighed down with lots of stuff he doesn't. But, he really wants the primary item, so he might well sign it just to get that, or maybe never get it again.

In re-examination, though, I really don't think there would be all that much difference if the legislature were 1,200 or so members.

Why?

Because we still have a two-party system, and I don't see that changing much no matter how much you increase the size of the governing body.

Sure, you might get a few third-party candidates in, especially from the really psycho fringe areas of California where the Green Party simply isn't green enough.

But what would that accomplish? They'd be isolated, unproductive, and completely out of touch. They would have enough punch to make anyone want to caucus with them, much less ally openly with them.