Mike: The political reality is that citizens are divided into believers and non-believers. Regardless of which side, change is blocked by the US Congress. Is it too complex to recognize the utility of a federal convention as a way to propose changes to the current system?
Joe: There is no need for a constitutional convention. The current gridlock on Capitol Hill arose from the Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts following the 2010 census. The 2020 census will be the occasion for the next wave of Congressional re-apportionment. The demographics of the US favor the progressive wing of the Democratic Party so strongly that the lock on the US House should be broken in this next re-apportionment- the Republicans can only play at the level of each Red state with gerrymandering just so many seats. This is not to say the Republicans won't continue to obstruct, as they will, it's just that their ability to do so will be diminished relative to today, and progressives will be in much better position to drive real solutions. I am always reminded by an old economic dictum: that which can not be sustained, won't be. The current Republican obstruction carries within it the seeds of its own demise.
Mike: We know private money corrupts, preventing best policy, and we know we've just recently entered into an era of unlimited corporate funding. That would indicate that there are no authentic progressives, only corporate suits with a progressive rhetoric.
Joe: There is also no reason to think the current regime of unlimited pac money in campaigns, a la Citizens United, won't be promptly overturned by the next 5-4 moderate to liberal majority on the Supreme Court. The odds are increasing that either Clinton or Sanders will be our next Presidents. I'm confident either would appoint a Justice who will vote to overturn.
Mike: Even if the court did reverse Citizens United, it would not break the status quo.
Joe: I have to admit we are a plutocracy, yes. I stubbornly refuse to quit on us, though. (German-Irish).
Mike: Apparently, and please correct me if wrong, you believe the Article V Convention is a re-write of the Constitution?
Joe: No, but a constitutional convention would be, I think, the devil's playground, a fount of risk, an uncontrolled Frankenstein's laboratory likely to be dominated by the power of great fortunes to a level that would make the current House of Representatives look like a Quaker-run pre-kindergarten. What makes you think the results of this would be any wiser than, say, the latest version of the Kansas legislature?