A Pa. constitutional sideshow

IHAVE to admit I got a chuckle out of the

Daily News

editorial page joining the chorus calling for a state constitutional convention (

Dec. 28

). For some reason, the People Paper and a few others believe there is a real possibility that the magic of 1776 will be recreated by a gathering of involved Pennsylvanians who care about good government. (The way the

DN

envisions it, of course).

I think such a convention would be a political freak show.

Let's be realistic. What kind of people are going to run for the chance to make these important changes? Remember, those who win will be giving up months away from their jobs and families. And I'm confident that due to the commonwealth's fiscal condition, there will be little (if any) compensation. Regardless, paying convention attendees and staff would go against the grain of what this particular public service is all about.

As the DN noted, there was a constitutional convention in the 1960s. I can actually remember it and knew some of the delegates - many of whom were the very people you'd want to be protected from. Nor would the Franklins and Jeffersons show up this time around. Instead, you'll have a room full of tea-partiers, Moveon.org types, pajama-clad bloggers, single-issue advocacy groups and special interests.

Yes, special interests. The same people the DN firmly believes are responsible for the rotting of the system. It's in their interest to influence any constitutional convention, and they'll be able to make sure their delegates don't lose a payday doing so.

Picture the scene: crazies from the left and right debating sunshine provisions with representatives of corporate Philadelphia, trial lawyers and unions. What fun. But who among them would represent the average Pennsylvanian?

Proponents of this idea will demand public financing of the elections for the convention or even that the sessions be conducted online so delegates can maintain normal lives throughout process. But that's just window dressing.

After all, whenever there's a problem, the kneejerk reaction is to call for meetings, hearings or commissions. There's been a run on blue ribbon panels over the last several years, with middling results at best. There's no reason to add another, no matter how well-intentioned.

Why not? Because our General Assembly has already made substantive changes in the way they operate. Just because it's been incremental - as change often is - doesn't mean it's not happening. The process is only "broken" insofar as elected officials need an excuse for their lack of accomplishment, and the media agrees.

The fact is that we have a constitutional convention every two years in Pennsylvania when we elect our General Assembly. It's wrong to paint these public servants with a broad brush of self-preservation and incompetence. The vast majority are dedicated to serving the best interests of their constituencies - and that dedication is not determined by party affiliation.

In fact, reforming our system of election - which wouldn't take a convention - would have more meaningful consequences for the Keystone State.

THE GOAL shouldn't be to create bulletproof safe seats or punish malcontents. A more common-sense electoral process could be achieved by drawing districts that include whole counties and municipalities and common geographic and socioeconomic factors.

If seats are drawn sensibly and competitively, primary elections won't always determine the winners, and our elected representatives will be more middle-of-the-road and responsive to the varied interests of their constituents.

Larry Ceisler is a principle in the public-relations firm of Ceisler-Jubelirer and the publisher of www.politicspa.com.

E-mail him at larry@cj-llc.com.