So: How would you vote in a referendum to boost the Cabinet from its current 15 to 39 members to ensure every constituency can have one? Because, as the outrage over what counties got Cabinet ministers rumbles on, no one wants to comment on the enormous elephant on roller skates that is gliding and pirouetting gracefully through the middle of the debate, but that's what we're talking about, isn't it?
Consider the row: it's certainly true that if you look at a map of where the 15 members of the Cabinet come from you will see a glaring, desolate wasteland bereft of senior ministerial representation all along the west coast.
The question is, however, whether you believe this is a good thing or a bad thing or shouldn't really matter either way.
The reality is that politically all politics is proximity and so, as votes go, it matters a great deal. We know where this debate goes.
The counties that have been left without a full cabinet minister will now perform the traditional Most Neglected County Ever jig and the Opposition parties and indeed Government deputies will wail and gnash their teeth and rend their garments.
At no point will anyone stop to engage with the aforementioned elephant politely maintaining his presence in the middle of the debate.
Why should it matter whether a county gets a cabinet minister or not? The argument (and not a weak one) is that a county or constituency having access to cabinet ministers means they have the ability to put the interests of their local parish forward at the highest level of political decision-making in this incredibly centralised country - that is, at Cabinet.
Let's be honest, if we pulled any more power into the centre there'd be a gravitational black hole forming over Merrion Square.
This is true but it is also incredibly disingenuous.
What they don't tell you is that by advocating their county get this power some other county should therefore be deprived of the ability to represent its interests at the same level.
The nice and easy populist answer to that is that "sure Dublin has too much representation any way and Dublin shouldn't have as many cabinet seats" which is all well and good except for the fact that 1.3 million people live in the greater Dublin region.
That's the awkward fact: that most people live in urban areas and if we are now going to move into a situation where our representation is not decided based on one citizen, one vote but on some Trump-style measure using amounts of acreage per county or some such then we are in serious trouble.
We get the sort of argument American Republicans make about "the heartland" and the sly suggestion that Americans living in cities aren't the real Americans.
Fact: Dublin and Cork are as much part of the real Ireland as anywhere else.
The logical destination of the demand for cabinet seats for every constituency that wants it is having a constitutional referendum to allow the Taoiseach to appoint as many cabinet ministers as there are constituencies.
How does that grab you, the idea of having 39 Cabinet ministers with departments divvied up smaller and smaller to ensure that every one of them has something to do? It's pretty much the same model we use in the European Commission to limited effect in that there's always a danger one ends up as Commissioner for Knowing How To Put Toner In The Photocopier Without Getting Toner Everywhere.
Would Leitrim be truly better off if it had the minister in charge of the Department of Stationery or the Department for Translating Stuff into Irish? Before you know it we'll have an inner cabinet of real jobs and an outer cabinet of members who get sad well-meaning "God love you" smiles from strangers. High babies and Low babies. Honours Maths and Sums.
In short: 39 does not go into 15.
But why is it that Mayo or Sligo or Leitrim or Donegal feel they must have a cabinet minister? Because, the argument goes, we've been neglected for years by "Dublin" and therefore need someone in Dublin to solve our problems.
Because, the logic goes, all the answers must be in Dublin.
Dublin, the place that has the solutions yet forever puts its own interests first.
Anyone who has read any of my columns in the past knows exactly where I'm heading with this. There's a large section of the Programme for Government laying out the perfectly logical desire for balanced regional development. Yet it also effectively concludes that regional development can only be brought about by someone in Dublin, be it a cabinet minister or senior civil servant.
Why does it not occur to anyone that rather than appointing a cabinet minister from Donegal or Clare or Longford we should have someone elected actually in those counties with the ability to make the decisions in the county, not beg from someone in Dublin?
Why is there almost no demand in this country to transfer tax and spending power from Dublin to the counties?
We need to have this debate as we form governments with smaller parties. Bear in mind that smaller parties tend to come from more urban areas and so in future we are more likely to see a larger concentration of cabinet ministers from small parties and therefore urban backgrounds.
Of course, all this assumes the neglected counties mean what they say. Don't assume they do. There's a weird streak of masochism that runs through many of our people who - given a choice between a block grant from the central coffers and having to make local choices on how to spend it or not spend it, or forever aching from the lash of neglect from Them Up In Dublin - will cry out for a lick o' the cat (o'nine tails, that is).