If it's broke, fix it.

That's the mantra of political activists and rank-and-file voters clamoring for a constitutional convention in Pennsylvania.

Theirs is the opinion that Harrisburg is so dysfunctional that drastic measures — specifically changing the commonwealth's legal charter — are the only way to make state government work better.

Some lawmakers, too, say they want the same thing. But those who toil in the state Capitol don't seem to be clamoring as loudly or rigorously as ardent supporters of a constitutional convention — "con-con" for short.

The fix may be worse than the problem.

That's the warning of legislators, academicians and professional political observers.

"Once you have a constitutional convention, it's kind of like Pandora's box," said Mike Coulter, professor of humanities and political science at Grove City College. "No one knows what will come of it."

That fear is well founded, says Rep. Jaret Gibbons, D-10th, who nonetheless supports — conditionally — a con-con.

"The scope of it is important," he said. "There are a lot of reforms that need to be addressed and a constitutional convention may be one option."

"But there's a lot of concern that groups with narrow interests, like guns and other social issues, could take over the agenda and create chaos."

Like Gibbons, most if not all legislators in districts that comprise a little or a lot of Butler County publicly back a con-con where delegates would deal with a set of issues predetermined before the convention begins.

The last such convention was in 1967. That con-con limited delegates to consider changes in only four areas: the judiciary, local government, finance and reapportionment.

Notably, there was no discussion on what to do about the legislative or executive branches.

Before a con-con could take place, the General Assembly would have to pass a bill calling for one. In Step 2, voters would have to approve a referendum.

Next, delegates would be elected. The delegates would meet and debate specific changes to the constitution. Finally, any proposed amendments would have to be ratified by voters.

Many Butler County-linked lawmakers, such as Rep. Brian Ellis, R-11th, have signed on to bills — both in the House of Representatives and Senate — calling for the rarely used tool in the legislative reform tool box.

"There's certainly a movement out there led by groups of people upset and frustrated," Ellis said. "The government is naturally a focus of their angst.

"They want a more ethical government. They want a government that lives within its means."

The public's ill will at Harrisburg — never in short supply, ever — has grown exponentially since a number of recent scandals.

In 2005, there was the Legislature's ill-fated, midnight pay grab. Two years later, "Bonusgate" broke. In between, anger has been fueled by spending, higher taxes and abuse of perks,

More recently was the state's budget bungle. Yes, the budget passed, but it was more than 100 days late.

"Our government is broken, it's dysfunctional. People have no trust in it," said Tim Potts, founder of the activist group Democracy Rising and never one to mince words as perhaps the leading advocate in Pennsylvania for a con-con.

"The Legislature has proven unable or unwilling to reform itself. So a constitutional convention, led by citizens, is our last, best hope."

Potts' Democracy Rising and other groups like Common Cause of Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth Foundation for years now have been leading the charge for a convention.

While Ellis believes the convention should be held to address "the operational function of government" and little more, Potts wants a more no-holds-barred con-con.

Issues he wants considered are tax reform, campaign finance reform, term limits, shrinking the size of the Legislature, redistricting reform, biennial state budgeting and merit selection of judges, and redistricting reform — to name a few.

Not many lawmakers, though proclaiming support for a con-con, back Potts' vision.

Of the 203 members in the General Assembly, only eight have signed on to the Democracy Rising petition calling for a referendum on a constitutional convention.

Democratic Sen. Jim Ferlo, who's 38th District includes parts of Allegheny, Armstrong and Westmoreland counties, is the only Western Pennsylvania legislator to ink the petition.

But a more radical con-con could produce unintended consequences, says Gibbons, like a radically new state constitution — one that sets public policy on hot-button issues from abortion to same-sex marriage, and from gun rights to the state store system.

Rep. Dick Stevenson, R-8th, shares those concerns. He, too, is for a far less-reaching convention.

But he also admitted unease with the idea of changing the constitution.

"If the Legislature can't fix what's wrong," he said, "it's not because the constitution prevents (it) from doing so."

Therefore, Coulter asserts, one could reason that it's the politicians, not the constitution, that needs fixing. And voters have the power to fix things at the ballot box.

Still, a whopping 72 percent of Pennsylvanians say they support a constitutional convention, according to a poll released earlier this year by Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster.

"Voters are disillusioned with state government," said poll director G. Terry Madonna, a Franklin & Marshall College political scientist. "I think they're generally discouraged and distraught by the performance of the Legislature and the governor."

The poll results and wanting to be on the side of "reform" likely explains why so many lawmakers claim to be for a con-con. But some question their sincerity.

"It's one thing to say you're for something," Madonna said, "it's another to take action."

It's not difficult to explain why none of the myriad of bills for a constitutional convention has been seriously considered, let alone voted on, in the past several years.

"It's not in their self-interest," Potts said. "Why would they vote to reduce the Legislature or for term limits or to give up their perks? They want to keep the status quo.

"If they wanted to do something, they would have done it by now. The so-called support is just lip service."

Meanwhile, politicians and pundits and professors agree on one thing: a constitutional convention is not imminent.

"It's taken the back-burner," Gibbons said, "to other issues like the economy and jobs."

"Yeah, it's a long shot," Potts agreed. "The citizens are going to have to get (ticked) off enough to demand it or lawmakers have to get enlightened enough.

"I'm not betting on the latter."