This November, voters in Connecticut will be asked, "Shall the state Constitution Convention be convened to revise or amend the state Constitution?" Many of my friends oppose such a convention, noting that the mechanisms are not well defined and that it opens up all kinds of potential issues for abuse. I take a contrary view, with a few important caveats.

We have a representational democracy. Many of us are too busy to be involved in drafting and lobbying for legislation that matters to us, so we have elected representatives to handle this task for us. This works well, if the representatives are doing their jobs effectively. Yet as Internet communications makes it easier for people to be better informed and more involved, I believe we should move towards more direct participation in our legislative processes.

In addition, another key aspect of our constitution, both in the Constitution State, and across our country, is the notion of checks and balances. If our elected officials are not doing their job, we should have recourse through checks and balances.

Granted, the electoral process is a key check and balance, but there are some that think our current electoral process is so flawed that we need something stronger, like a constitutional convention.

This takes me to the caveats that I have. If you feel that your representative is not doing the job that they should be doing, and the electoral process is so flawed that there is no other way of addressing this, then you should vote for the constitutional convention.

However, if you don’t even know who your state representatives are, then you should learn how your state reps are before voting for this. Likewise, if you haven’t followed any legislation through the General Assembly, and contacted lawmakers to express your opinion about pending legislation, then you shouldn’t vote for this. If your state representative hasn’t responded the way you like, and that representative has run unopposed, you should not vote for this, but you should run for state office yourself, instead.

If calling for a constitutional convention will get more people to know who their state representatives are, follow closely the legislation working its way through the General Assembly, get involved in discussion the legislation with the representatives and run for office if the representatives are not responsive, then I think the constitutional convention is a great idea.

However, my understanding is that 85% of people do not know who their state representatives are, of those, only a handful ever contact their state representatives, and even fewer even consider running for state office.

So, if you want a constitutional convention, work to get everyone you know to become more involved, and perhaps when a constitutional convention rolls around on the ballot next time, people can vote for it with a clear conscience. On the other hand, if enough people truly get involved, we may find that the electoral process can provide the checks and balances we need.