ConCon08:Yes,No?

[SyZyGy]

What strikes more fear in the seat of the CT political class? It is the 20-year question, Constitutional Convention (yes or no?).

Why are labor unions and pampered, protected civil "servants" pouring more than $1 million into the NO!?

What is the everyday, under-represented Jane/John Doe citizens to do when representative government stops listening to them because the representatives are "buying" votes by caving in to the protected and privileged?

What will happen when the protected and pampered have driven everyone else out of the state? Who will they "feed" on then?

The Courant wants change, but NIMBY.

It's time for an infusion of democracy into the moribund legislature.

If you have more than half a brain, whether or not it is tied behind you back or you are sitting on it, it is time (will you be alive in 20 years?) to convene.

Vote YES.

[standish]

Were voters to approve a Constitutional Convention, Pandora’s Box might seem the lesser of evils. Nor is a Convention likely to achieve initiative, referendum, an amendment supporting marriage as between a man and a woman, or any of the popular issues the electorate would likely pass, if given the opportunity.

Firstly, it will take a two-thirds majority to approve a Constitutional Convention. Then, it will be Connecticut’s liberal legislature who will appoint the delegates to the Convention… not voters. Can you imagine the gaggle who will populate this club? Since political insiders and left-wing liberals would control the agenda, we should expect that their goals would be to consolidate power and implement changes to ensure an even less democratic outcome, rather than expose their power to initiative, referendum, or other changes they oppose. We might see the dissolution of townships and the imposition of regional, bureaucratic, governing agencies. Finally, voters will still have to approve this brave, new Constitution, with all the flaws the delegates will create and no guarantee for inclusion of initiative or referendum.

A simpler, safer, and equally likely approach would be to find some real representatives of the electorate to sponsor a Constitutional Amendment for Initiative and Referendum. Three-quarters of the legislature would have to pass their amendment, which could produce the desired outcome, but, without the risk of a totally new Constitution, which might include a more powerful legislature, judiciary, executive and further disenfranchised electorate… sans Initiative and Referendum.

Of course, “none of the above” is the most likely outcome.

[SyZyGy]

Standish wrote:

Then, it will be Connecticut’s liberal legislature who will appoint the delegates to the Convention… not voters. Can you imagine the gaggle who will populate this club?

Despite your final hedge, you apparently believe that a ConCon will ultimately result in the "goosing" of the electorate. Discounting another American Turn-around and the stacked deck on the Capitol Card Table, what's left - the same old song and dance, Politics and Poker?

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Leigh,

You've made some very strong arguments for voting no for a Constitutional Convention. With the risk of the public suffering from unintended consequences of Constitutional changes at the state level, we should all work harder to keep our rights to referendum from being further eroded by the political manipulations of the dominant party and to work harder to regain what we have already lost.

Isn't it amazing that during the political season how the parties portray the electorate as being intelligent and how after the election how the incumbents treat the populace as needing protection from itself.

I personally worked against the Wethersfield Redevelopment Agency's $10,000,000.00 referendum last year because I wanted to retain for the public the last say in any redevelopment proposal. I was unwilling to give up such an opportunity to vote any proposal up or down. The WRA, only an appointed advisory committee, implied that the public was not smart enough to make such decisions; they implied under the rubric of "representative" government that the public was only smart enough to elect the Councilors who eventually approved their own appointments.

I will continue to advocate for the honest use of referenda not only in Wethersfield but in Connecticut.

[standish]

I also fully support initiative and referendum as necessary and effective means to enfranchise voters. An amendment, and not a Constitutional Convention, is the safe way to accomplish these objectives. None of the incumbents representing Wethersfield supports either, as far as I am aware. We need to impress upon whoever is elected that the electorate expects its representatives to champion an amendment for initiative and referendum.