THE ISSUE:

Three proposals will be on New York ballots Nov. 7, including a constitutional convention.

THE STAKES:

This is a chance to fine-tune our government to better serve the public good.

The question before New York voters Nov. 7 isn't merely whether to hold a constitutional convention. It's about whether we believe we and our fellow citizens are capable of self-government.

Proposal 1 asks New Yorkers a question that comes around once every 20 years under the current constitution: "Shall there be a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same?"

We urge voters to say yes.

There's understandable apprehension over this. Public employee unions fear for their pension guarantees. Environmentalists worry for the Adirondack preserve. Gun control advocates are concerned New York's strong laws could be weakened. There's an overarching fear that at a time when big money is pouring into elections and a national populist wave has brought America an unqualified, chaotic president, a convention could be hijacked by radical right wing forces bent on reversing many of the state's progressive achievements.

Amplifying that last fear is the fact that convention delegates would be selected next year in districts based on state Senate maps gerrymandered to help Republicans hold control of that chamber.

Yet all those concerns are overblown. Democrats hold a 2-to-1 enrollment edge in New York. Republican dominance of the Senate is the result of an alliance with a Democratic splinter group — a matter of political opportunism more than voters' preferences. That dynamic isn't likely to play out in a convention, where delegates aren't looking to preserve their jobs or enhance their status.

Much good can come out of a convention. It could affirm in the state constitution women's reproductive rights, something Senate Republicans have consistently blocked. It could rebalance the power in state government that now rests heavily with the governor, diminishing the role of the Legislature. It could strengthen the state's obligation to provide quality public education. It could come up with a better court system than our mix of elected and appointed judges and, at the local level, non-lawyers who often lack legal training. It could give local governments more fiscal autonomy.

The most compelling argument for a convention, however, is that citizens would have a chance to fix a political system that has long fostered corruption. It's a chance to do what politicians simply will not: bring down the sky-high limits on campaign contributions and close the loophole on limited liability companies that allow wealthy interests to lavish tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on campaigns; to create a truly independent redistricting process; to make voting easier for all citizens; and to at least debate thoughtfully a system of publicly financed elections to reduce the influence of big money.

Yes, this sounds idealistic, and no, there is no guarantee a convention will do all we might hope. But approving a convention is the first step. Voters would still get to choose delegates next year, and after the convention ends, voters would hold the final say on any changes.

This is democracy at its best, New York — and perhaps its most difficult. Are we up to the challenge? We believe New Yorkers are.