A Constitutional Convention presents a double-edged sword for both California Democrats and Republicans. Once the politicians stop using code words, the two shibboleths in the room, whether elephant- or donkey-sized, are Proposition 13 and 98. These are the prickly issues that get stuck in the throat of any call for reforming the fiscal mess that California budget and finance has become.

On the one hand Republicans could place Prop 98 on the table claiming it locks in unreasonable spending requirements, while Democrats would counter by placing Prop 13 on the table to match, saying it’s a stranglehold on much-needed revenue.

This is the classic unstoppable force v immovable object dilemma and Gordian Knot all rolled into one Constitutional nightmare brought on by plummeting revenues and ever growing expenditures.

Could there be a compromise that pares back education spending to some acceptable baseline and rewrites Proposition 13 as a realistic tax on business property? These are the heavyweight issues standing in the middle of the ring.

Conservative Republicans will still squawk about unchecked spending and Democrats will bemoan the failure of Republicans to “compromise on taxes” but never opt for compromise themselves on spending. And round and round it will go.

California needs to find a Solomon or some other adult in the room that can lead the all Californians to some breakthrough before truly Draconian measures must be put into place.

Senator DeSaulnier makes a careful argument that, whether it’s a 55- or 51-percent legislative majority, the current two-thirds Constitutional requirement for passage of a budget and taxes (fees and bonds are another argument) frustrates majority rule and through a complex set of unintended consequences makes a hash of accountability on both sides of the aisle. DeSaulnier, speaking for most Democrats working to defeat the super-majority requirement, basically means to say, whoever is the 51-percent majority should hang by their own petard. Let the ruling party be responsible for leadership decisions and pay at the polls; consequences that a two-thirds vote muddles beyond recognition.

I’m all for a fair knife fight. Yet, the primary issue facing any California Constitutional Convention ought to be fair representation. Period.

If the electorate knew that the districts weren’t fixed and that their vote counted and would not be wasted in carefully gerrymandered districts so as to allow a simple majority (or minority) far more power than it actually deserves, then and only then would reforms like two-year budgeting, simple majority passage of the budget, term-limits, mid-year reviews, anon make any sense or possible impact.

Proposition 11 certainly is not the solution, but for more reasons than what Democrats, eager to insulate themselves further from the electorate, think. What California needs is actually more representation that better reflects the electorate in the Assembly (Madison’s Mirror), as well as more choices. Single member districts elected by simple plurality at the Assembly and Senatorial level no longer serve California’s diverse polity. The political battle typically devolves to the faction that has the power to draw the district lines to their favor. First of all, no matter the outcome of the inevitable squabble over the efficacy of a unicameral v. bicameral legislature, California ought to increase the number of representatives. Then it should increase the size of districts to make them multi-member, perhaps 3-4 representatives per “super district;” elected by Single Transferable vote (STV). Single member districts like Supervisor, Senator, and statewide offices including Governor ought to implement Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) successfully used in San Francisco and other California cities.

These proven alternative voting methods would deliver clear majority winners (instead of someone in a field of four winning with 26% of vote), neutralize spoilers, increase competition, elect more minorities—including Republicans and intact white males—isolate the frothy fringe of both parties, enable more independent candidates, reduce inbred monopoly of Democrats and Republicans, while creating more opportunity to reach across party and geographical factions on critical issues facing all Californians. The electorate will be more satisfied and have a true stake in the outcomes as, in IRV and STV, even if their first choice is eliminated their vote could still be be allocated to some preferred candidate over some other, while eliminating the need for expensive and undemocratic runoffs.

Budgeting, super majorities, term limits, Prop 11 are all side shows in the circus of antiquated electoral methods. Fixing representation, giving voters more choice and fairer, fuller representation in California, should be the first order of business for any California Constitutional Convention.

Unfortunately neither Republicans or Democrats have articulated any public-justice view for the role of State Government. Democrats have no limits so state and government becomes everything and spin out of control. Republicans, meanwhile, tend to reduce the scope of government to protection of property and contracts with no regard for the rights of other social structures in civil society.

Worst of all, both left and right have a hard time keeping government as political community distinct from faith community, whether articulated as some anachronistic socialist worldview or self-righteous American civil religion.