Barnie Day was a Democratic delegate from Patrick County from his election in 1997 through the 2001 session. A former county administrator and business owner, he is now a banker.

The political language of the realm these days trends toward phrases that inevitably include the words 'cut', 'reduce', 'streamline', 'efficiency', 'restructure', 'downsize', and so on, or some combination thereof. And it emanates from all quarters -- Democrat, Republican, House, Senate, the Governor's office, the lobby corps, the pundits, etc. -- as if to imply some cure-all for what surely ails us. And perhaps it does.

Most observers, Democrat, Republican and agnostic, agree that government as we know it in Virginia is going to be different after this coming session of the General Assembly. For better, worse, or indifference, its function, meaning, and purpose is going to be redefined.

Most of these changes will be driven by budget constraints. (At least we call them budget constraints -- we're still spending $25 billion a year.) Some of them will be driven by ideology that is roughly equivalent to a form of Zen and what might be called Anti-Zen. Translation: Less is More (Republican) and No It's Not (Democratic). A few will be fathered by practicality -- but only a few.

Will members of the legislature look inward? They should. Those who would cure us, those practitioners of the political arts, might want to consider that Biblical adage found in Luke 4:23.

There have been some sputterings in this regard, some small talk of office allowance cuts, and salary givebacks, and shortened sessions. But…

While we're cutting, reducing, streamlining, downsizing, and re-structuring our way out of this mess we've gotten into, why don't we at least consider the single greatest impediment to improved delivery of services, the single most dysfunctional structural ailment in all of state government-the misalignment of our House and Senate districts.

And no, I do not mean the 'political' alignment, where the lines are drawn, or even how they're drawn.

I mean the alienation, the distance, the confusion created on all fronts by the mathematical disconnect inherent in overlaying 40 Senate districts with 100 House districts, this two-and-a-half-to-one mismatch.

The current structural relationship between the House and the Senate makes little sense. It is a traditional relationship, yes, but one that is, despite its origin, so…well…arbitrary.

There is a 'fix' to this -- one that would simultaneously reduce divisiveness, increase citizen participation, make the legislative, indeed, the government process itself, more responsive -- and save a ton of money.

Downsize the House to 80 seats, two per Senate district. Overlay each Senate district with exactly, precisely two House districts.

Aah ... but there's that little thing called the constitution.

Amend it. That's what the amendment process is for.

Put a proposal before the electorate. Let the citizens of the Commonwealth decide what would serve them best. Let them be the arbiters of the merits of such a proposal.

And what are they?

The monetary savings are obvious, but, to my mind, are overshadowed by other considerations. From an individual's perspective, the one senator, one delegate aspect would still hold. Each of us would be represented by one of each, just as we now are.

The real gain, to my mind, would be the stronger commonality such a structure would force between House and Senate members whose representational interests are sometimes now so disparate.

It would seem, at first-blush, almost intuitive, that such a downsizing would weaken the House, but, upon reflection, I would argue that such a realignment would make both chambers stronger -- individually, and collectively.

Individual House members certainly would be strengthened in that they individually would represent a larger percentage of the whole. Senate members would be strengthened, too, in that their representational interests would be less diffused, where the House is concerned.

In plain English, the senators would have only two delegates to keep track of. I don't know how many have more than two now, but in some parts of the state my guess is that this relationship gets ridiculous.

And individual senator work-loads would inevitably be lessened-as would the workload of the legislature. Less workload, where the legislature is concerned, means less government.

That notion alone should prompt at least some consideration.

There are lots of arguments, but the best one comes, of course, from that adage in Luke:

Physician, heal thyself.

Let any elected or appointed official know what you think and how you feel by clicking here.