What is a classical convention?

In your opinion, what should a Constitutional Convention look like?

• Who should be considered for delegates, and how should they be chosen? What should its limitations be? Regardless of whether a Constitutional Convention has been triggered (), how do you envision such a convention coming together and operating?

• Answer:

  My ideal answer is opposite to what Tong Dumo's nightmare scenario.   The process would start at a very local level. Geographic units of no more than 1,000 people would convene and discuss their shared concerns and principles. They wouldn't agree on everything, but they could agree on a few things. They would choose a person to represent them by multiple ballot voting without nominations or campaigning.  The person chosen would probably not be a sitting politician. The only way they'd be captured by a special interest would be if the majority of people in the area supported that view -- which is surprisingly rare.  I live in a very rural area, but even here the majority does not support the NRA. There would be places where a major employer would carry the platform because so many of the people in the community work at that same employer. And that's OK.   During these local conversations the  people would give their newly chosen delegate instructions to vote FOR certain things, to vote AGAINST certain things, and to ABSTAIN from casting a vote on other things. For example, we're for better roads and bridges, we're against aid to oppressive foreign regimes, and we have no position on uni-sex toilets.   Then the delegates from those areas would meet at a larger convention inclusive of up to a million people. These regions would be geographically compact -- not gerrymandered. And then all those delegates would discuss the issues from a purely representative perspective. They would only vote according to the instructions they'd received at home. They could not trade their vote on one issue to get support for another.   Admittedly, much of what the people at home talked about wouldn't be directly the stuff constitutions are made of. The convener would have to draw the conversation back and back again to, "Yeah, but do we need to make a law to control that?"   There would probably have to be some fixed questions, such as, "What rights should every citizen have, irrespective of the politics?" And, "What things should be determined by the will of the majority?" And "How do we know when something is a local issue, and when a national decision should be imposed on all communities?"   This disingenuous process would result in a lot of elements from the old Constitution being reintroduced into the new one. But only if the idea is still the best way to accomplish what the people say they want.