Thanks, but no thanks

THAT the mechanisms of New York State governance require serious repair is beyond dispute. A campaign finance system that fosters corruption and creates kingmakers of moneyed interests cries out for a thorough overhaul. The incumbent protection racket known as gerrymandering must end.

The voting process needs to be reinvented to stimulate anaemic turnouts. And greater home rule for New York City and other municipalities is essential: it’s absurd that the city, for instance, needs Albany’s permission for something as prosaic as lowering speed limits on its own streets.

These and other issues could be fodder for a state constitutional convention, arguably a once-in-a-generation chance to reshape New York democracy. Every 20 years, a question must be put before the electorate, as it will be again on Tuesday for the first time since 1997: “Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution and amend the same?”

For the most part, New Yorkers have not cottoned to con-cons. They voted “no” 20 years ago, just as they did 40 and 60 years ago. Except for a convention in the mid-1960s initiated by the Legislature – a fruitless exercise, since its proposals were ultimately shot down at the ballot box. No assemblage of this kind has been held since 1938.

In 1997, we urged a “yes” vote. It’s tempting to make the same argument now. But we feel obliged this time to recommend a “no” vote. It’s not because we fear change. On the contrary, the concern is that the likelihood of a con-con yielding the most desperately needed reforms is disappointingly low, and the possibility of its accomplishing nothing at significant cost, or, worse, setting New York back even further, is worrisomely high.

At the risk of sounding starry-eyed, New Yorkers have it within their power, at the polls every two years, to demand a full Albany housecleaning. There’s no need to wait for a plebiscite every other decade – and no compelling reason now for a costly convention with dubious prospects for essential change.