It sounds like a good idea: calling a constitutional convention to correct the ills with Illinois state government.

Goodness knows we've got a few ills. Our state Legislature moves with the speed of an elephant in quicksand, when it manages to move at all. Our current governor couldn't get elected dog catcher. And we continually spend much more than we make.

Many goals could be accomplished in a constitutional convention, which we'll refer to as a con con from this point forward. Proponents say a con con would:

l Let the people address the state's pension deficit time bomb.

l Permit the creation of a recall provision.

l Address school funding issues.

l Enable the creation of a graduated income tax system.

l Impose term limits.

l Limit the gerrymandering of legislative districts.

The goals are good. And the opportunity for voters to authorize a con con hasn't existed since 1988. This is our first really good chance to take a kick at the bad cat known as state government. As the proponents say, what's not to like about this ballot proposition: yes or no for the calling of a constitutional convention.

Actually, the idea is just as poorly considered as it was in 1988, when a whopping 75 percent of voters sent the proposal packing. The troubles with our state government have less to do with the constitution, created in 1970 and often cited as a model for other states, than with the faulty leadership in our state.

Our leaders can be replaced at election time. The constitution can be changed without holding a con con, and has been amended 10 times since 1970.

Although proponents say a con con could be held for as little as $13 million to $24 million (as if that's chump change!) we're inclined to believe predictions of a tab running as high as $90 million. When was the last time our state government did anything within the conservative budget projection?

Want more to consider? The potential of opening Pandora's Box is so great with a con con it has united traditional sparring partners - including the Illinois Business Roundtable and the Illinois AFL-CIO. Jeff Mayes, president of the business group, and Tim Drea, secretary-treasurer of the labor group, appeared together before the editorial board to argue for a "no" vote on behalf of the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution.

Any and all provisions of the constitution could be reviewed and possibly changed in a con con. Such explosive issues as gun control, same-sex marriage, eminent domain, euthanasia, the death penalty and school prayer could be resolved. Other possible issues include voter qualifications, legislative compensation, combining and/or eliminating state offices, changing the manner in which judges are elected and public support of private education - to name but a few issues.

And guess who will be calling the shots. The most compelling reason for a "no" vote is the likelihood that our current, Chicago-dominated state leadership and elected officials will take control of any constitutional convention. They've got the big population and they'll get the most votes.

Former Gov. Jim Edgar expressed our fears about changing the state constitution in a guest editorial last week: "There is no need - indeed there is real risk - to laying it open to a convention manipulated by the same political players, interest groups and single-issue zealots who have wielded undue influence in the state House. We can and should reject leaders who have let us down. We have the opportunity, the power and the responsibility to do so Nov. 4 and every two years thereafter. But we should not react to bad government by jeopardizing a good constitution."

We agree. We need new leadership, not a new state constitution. Vote "no" to this needless and risky proposal.

Feedback: We want to hear what you have to say. Type your thoughts about our editorials in our "comments" field at www.thesouthern.com/opinions. If you want to see your comments in the newspaper, e-mail them directly to gary.metro@thesouthern.com along with your name, address and telephone number.