All reform proposals for making California government more representative and responsive face the same obstacle: Entrenched interests, including lawmakers, who benefit from the status quo.

The best means for overcoming those interests is a citizens assembly, a body of approximately 160 average citizens -- randomly selected like a jury pool to ensure diversity and impartiality -- empowered to formally propose electoral reforms via a statewide referendum to their fellow voters.

The citizens assembly members study political reform recommendations for nine months, listening to experts and holding public hearings. Then they vote on which reforms to place directly on the ballot. Unlike a constitutional convention, a citizens assembly's mandate is not broad: it focuses narrowly on the rules of the electoral process, since this is where politicians have too strong a conflict of interest to make proposals themselves.

The goal is not to be a parallel legislature. It is to propose reforms with the potential to elect political leaders who will provide better governance.

Citizens assemblies have been used successfully in Canada, the Netherlands, even China. Because the assembly is composed of average citizens, its recommendation has tremendous legitimacy with the public. In one statewide survey, 75 percent of California voters said they would like to see a citizens assembly created, and 70 percent said they were more likely to support recommendations made by a panel of average citizens than to support the ideas of a government panel or even a committee of independent experts.

The clear message is: "We the people" believe average citizens have more credibility than the political class. That's an important lesson to keep in mind during any reform discussions.