The linked post from Mark Rauterkus’s blog talks about momentum for a constitutional convention in PA, and he asks, among other questions:

Will Allegheny County Executive and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dan Onorato make a Constitution convention a central part of his campaign?

I don’t know how Mark self-identifies, but I’d call him more of a libertarian, and while I often disagree with him, he is right on one point. If we are going to see change to the PA governmental system, it will take a constitutional convention. I haven’t written anything about this at all so far, but as the general election moves closer, I’m sure we will see more dialogue about it.Mark’s ideas are as good a place as any to start talking about this.

As much as I’m an activist, I also like structure, and I’m one who wants to think through every ramification of a change before making it so that 1) you are clear if the change is the best one to make, and 2) you are ready for any unexpected consequences that might come up.  If thought through well enough, there won’t be any unexpected results. Make sense? I also think the majority of people don’t realize how much we rely, even on a daily basis, the structures that make up our society and culture, nor does the average person think enough about the ramifications, and too often, want to quickly make rash decisions. So the call for a constitutional convention is a bit scary to me. I’m not for keeping the status quo, but I am all about changing it in predictable ways for predictable results, based on real reasons.

First, to address, Mark’s question above. I believe that Dan Onorato has made specific changes to the PA governmental structure central to his campaign, like shrinking the number of elected officials, and his campaign is quite clear that these changes would require a constitutional convention. I don’t expect that the Onorato campaign will make a constitutional convention itself a main campaign issue. Onorato strikes me as a candidate who works on the premise of bringing people to the table and sorting out a plan that suits everyone as much as possible. It is a method of working within the existing structure to create incremental and smaller changes that add up to a positive result. Calling for a constitutional convention where many things are up for grabs (Mark’s post lists many of them) suggests that the structure is broken, and better to throw it out and start all over again. To be fair, I don’t think Rauterkus is saying let’s start all over. But in general, that is the premise of a constitutional convention.

For me the sticky point is this: who gets to make the decisions about the changes that will happen? I am a big fan of the way voter constituents can engage in the legislative process today.  We move through an election season where we get to learn about candidates; they get elected; we have the opportunity to meet with them, one on one and discuss what is important to us; they cast votes which are public knowledge; we get a chance in the next election to keep them or replace them. It isn’t a perfect system, but all in all, it isn’t bad, and it allows for every single voter to have a voice and talk directly to their legislator about what is important to them. and, unlike at the Federal level, the state elected officials are fairly accessible. They get to know their constituents. If you have a representative or a senator who won’t meet with you, that is a person you ought to be working to get thrown out of office. In this system of representative democracy, you, the voter has direct input in meaningful and known ways.

But what about a constitutional convention? The only way that all of the voters get the same level of voice is if the convention included 100% of the voters. Which would be impossible. So, by the very nature of the convention, some people do not have a voice while others get to make decisions that impact those who have been silenced.

The big issue I have with a constitutional convention has to do with the scope of it. If the scope of what the convention will or will not cover isn’t clear enough, anything may be up for grabs. We have seen a number of instances across multiple states where civil rights are being stripped away from people. Virginia where the governor wants to use a literacy test to allow ex-inmates to vote; Arizona where if you aren’t carrying the right papers you can be deported; Kentucky where a candidate thinks White-only businesses would be perfectly fine. For a constitutional convention, who will pick the delegates and who will decide what is on or off the table? Who will make sure that the rights of the minority (in every respect) are protected while the majority rules? I just don’t want to use an unpredictable system to try and fix problems if the unpredictability might create new and worse problems.

It isn’t hard to find people who are angry and frustrated. These are valid and real experiences, yet this anger and frustration can also be fueled and exploited by crazy ideas. Consider the number of Tea Party protestors who are on Social Security and Medicare, but are protesting against government run health care. Are they ready to give up their coverage?

Even Onorato’s more targeted changes will require a constitutional convention. We won’t see meaningful change without one. So, I hope as the dialogue about a convention begins, someone is thinking through all of the ramifications and potential unexpected outcomes so that we change without exploited, misguided anger and frustration.

Mark Rauterkus & Running Mates ponder current events: Democracy Rising Says..