What’s more powerful, the right to complain about government, or the right to reform it? Clearly, one right is more powerful, and indeed it’s that one which makes an American citizen who and what they are--a member of a society with the power to alter or abolish what it dislikes about government. You’ll find very few Americans today who want to abolish the government we have, the one with three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial. What the vast majority want is to keep what we have, but address concerns regarding how it currently operates.
Polls show as few as 9% approve of Congress, or put another way, 90%+ disapprove of Congress, a statistic that’s been trending for a decade. When the institution established to represent the will of the People is disapproved by 90%, and for ten years or more, it’s self-evident that it’s time for them to exercise their right to alter what they dislike. History teaches that if We don’t, forces of corruption will alter it against our wishes. Some argue that’s already occurring due to court decisions that money is speech, and corporations acting as persons, can pour unlimited amounts of private funds into public elections. This status quo of politics has resulted in government drowned in private money, unresponsive, where laws/loopholes go to the highest bidders, written by lobbyists, signed off on by members of Congress, and disliked by the People.
The Constitution is designed so that in the event Congress becomes unresponsive to the needs of the People, a convention of the states is called to consider amendment proposals, and those voted up by 2/3 are then sent on to the People for ratification. 3/4 approval by the People for ratification is a principle that regardless if an idea is conservative or liberal, structural or civil, it must have all one side signed on, plus at least half the opposition, or it goes to the dustbin of history. 75% approval makes it mathematically impossible for a society to harm itself in the process of building consensus, an idea without broad support won’t survive the scrutiny.
It all sounds pretty simple--if Congress stops working, the states hold a convention to propose amendments, and 75% consensus of the People decides which are worthy of adoption. So why haven’t we ever convoked this federal convention of the states? The answer is complicated, but in a nutshell, it’s because both the People and the members of Congress have assumed or stood behind what political commentators have asserted for decades--that a federal convention opens up the possibility of the Constitution being rewritten. But as we know, upon close inspection, it is an irrational fear to believe that 75% of the People are going to approve of tinkering with the Constitution, let alone writing a new one. Will you get fifty percent approval for this issue or that? Sure, but few things in a society can garner 75% support.
For generations the People have desired to "take the money out of politics" for a reason--to prohibit a system where legislation/loopholes go to the highest bidder. A non-partisan, structural amendment concerned with electoral reform is the only issue which consistently polls an approval rating of 90%+. Is it coincidence that 90%+ disapprove of Congress, and the same percentage desires electoral reform? Is Congress going to propose an amendment to remove private funds from public elections? The Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments: Congress or a federal convention. If you're saying No to a convention, you're saying No to the chance the People find common ground, and that's wrong. A convention is not a re-write, it’s an upgrade--we will keep what we have, and add good things by reversing bad court decisions.