Hi Steven,

I wish you the best of luck, though even as die-hard reformer like myself finds the goal of a new constitution somewhat quixotic. :-) My one plea is that you wouldn't tie yourself too strongly to IRV; I love the idea of ranked-choice voting, but (as a former physicist) I cringe at the mathematical and strategy problems in inherent in IRV, as opposed to Condorcet-compliant election methods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

For the record, I've also performed my own thought experiment on what a less-dysfunctional state government might look like. Perhaps you might find it interesting, or at least amusing. :-)

The Governor and James Madison
A Radical Middle Dialogue on Legislative Reform
http://radicalcentrism.org/reengineer_legislature.html

Sincerely,
Ernie P.

California needs a constitution that speaks to ONLY how we govern ourselves and the basic rights of the people. We need to remove all of the special interest legislation. Perhaps we need a new class of legislation that cannot be toyed with by the legislature for some period of time. (The sunset idea.) Of course the biggest challenge is to keep special interests from determining what's in the new constitution, including legislators. Above all we need to get on with the task.

The U.S. national debt is an Odious Debt under international law, therefore as long as the people of north america make the current regime null we don't have to be indentured servants of anyone party, peron or nation. All will be backed up by UN Law. Making the new form of government more recognizable. May I also recommend Demarchy with a council to replace the president.

Public financing of elections, based on the models of Arizona and Maine (not the current presidential system), would dramtically change the lanscape of California politics, freeing elected officials to serve the public interest, getting them out of the endless fundraising game, opening up the process to new candidates and ideas, and slamming on the brakes to pay-to-play poitics as usual. It should therefore be high on the reform agenda at the Constitutional Convention Summit.

I totally concur with Craig. Everyone is suggesting what the constitutional convention must embrace: The demise of the two-thirds majority requirement for budget approval, undoing crippling Prop. 13, proportional representation, revamping the setting of legislative boundaries, rules for voter initiatives, etc.

But conspicuously missing from the proposed list in the discussions I have observed so far is publicly financed campaigns. Yet the one thing everyone agrees on, left right or center, is that privately sponsored candidates are the corruption behind all the other corruption. (They just disagree on which private interests are doing the damage.) Our democracy, majority rule, is trumped by the Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules.

If this doesn't change, a new constitution will treat symptoms while ignoring the disease; so let's lobby loud and long for a constitutional change that lets us taxpayers buy our democracy back. The only way to reduce the influence of special interest lobbies to the same stature as citizens without four- and five-figure checks to pass out is to remove candidates' NEED for private campaign funding. It's established, tried, tested and successful in other states. We need it in California ASAP.