California's elites are talking, and here's what they're saying: this governor can't get things done, the legislature is hopeless, the entire state government is dysfunctional. (OK, just because they're elites, they're not wrong. These are Western Elites, not the dreaded Eastern Elites who are being so, so, so unfair to Sarah Palin). The you know what has hit the fan. The only way to fix this is top-to-bottom reform.

So let's have a constitutional convention.

What does your blogger think? Put the convention in some place nice (Monterey, maybe, or how about Coronado?) and I'm there, live blogging every second. But while I hate to burst bubbles (OK, I enjoy the occasional bubble burst), I wonder if a constitutional convention is a realistic goal, and whether such a gathering might be more trouble than it's worth.

Take for example the two-thirds supermajority required for the legislature to pass a budget or raise taxes. That would be an obvious target of a major constitutional reform. And it would face fierce opposition from Republicans, who as the minority need the two-thirds requirement to remain relevant. Voters, who see Prop 13's supermajority requirement for taxes as sacred, also would object. But, under Article XVIII of the state constitution, the calling of a constitutional convention must begin with -- a vote of two-thirds of the legislature. Oh, bitter irony!

(The two-thirds vote of the legislature wouldn't be enough to call the convention. That vote would be simply to ask the public whether to call the convention. Voters, by a simple majority, would then decide whether to have such a convention.)

I spent yesterday researching the subject, and talking to folks involved in the push for the constitutional convention. Supporters of the idea offer alternative methods to call a convention. One way would be to use the initiative process. Such an initiative would be complicated (so complicated it might have to be split into two parts). First, the initiative would have to change the constitution to permit voters to call a convention directly, without the legislature first voting to put the question on the ballot. Then the initiative -- or companion second initiative -- would have to ask voters to call such a convention and set out the rules under which the constitution would operate.

Kevin Starr, the distinguished historian who is on a panel of California history experts advising the effort, appeared with me yesterday on Warren Olney's KCRW (89.9-FM) show, "Which Way, LA?". He offered another alternative. Reformers could convene -- outside the normal process -- a citizens' constitutional convention. If done well, it would produce recommendations and create pressure on the legislature to act. Perhaps two thirds of the legislature could be convinced to begin the process of calling an actual convention, or to adopt some of the recommendations directly.

All of this is interesting. But it feels somewhat indirect. We have an initiative process that allows us to change the state constitution. Why go through the extra steps? Well, making big changes the normal way would require multiple initiatives. With a constitutional convention, the reforms could be presented -- as a whole, in one measure -- to voters for approval. Which would make things easier.

Put me down for now as a skeptic, unless the convention electors wear powdered wigs, of course. In that case, I'm 100 percent for it. I love costume dramas.