Hard times call for hard choices. Whether or not Hawai'i should hold a Constitutional Convention is one of those difficult decisions.

A ConCon can be a powerful vehicle for social change, yielding both worthy ideas and policy discussions that bring new voices to a body politic that's been lacking in fresh perspectives.

It's not a question of whether a ConCon is a good idea. It's a question of when. Viewed against the backdrop of bleak fiscal prospects for state government and the overarching national financial crisis that's almost certain to sour the outlook further, it's become increasingly difficult to justify a significant expenditure on a convention now.

This is particularly true when there is no clear and urgent need for changing the Constitution in a way that could not be accomplished through an existing venue.

It's under these conditions that voters should vote "no" on the Constitutional Convention question on the Nov. 4 ballot. That question asks: "Shall there be a convention to propose a revision of or amendments to the Constitution?"

The focus of the debate about the proposal earlier this year concentrated on cost, and competing range of estimates came in all over the map, starting below $3 million and around $42 million at the high end. These estimates exclude the cost of holding an election to select ConCon delegates. Ultimately, the decision on convention particulars and budget would rest with the Legislature.

But squabbling over how much it will cost is unproductive and misses a major point: Tax revenue projections keep falling and the list of projects on the chopping block grows daily. An outlay of tax dollars anywhere in this range would be defensible only if it were reasonably certain to produce improvements that would reap significant rewards down the road, and if there were no cheaper alternative.

Neither of those conditions — certainty of success or the lack of alternatives — is met.

To illustrate the first point, making structural changes to the state's educational system to benefit Hawai'i's children would be an admirable goal for a convention. But none of the ideas floated so far — including the seven local school boards supported by the Lingle administration — can be considered a sure-fire improvement, or even sure to emerge from a ConCon.

At a stage when state social services are anticipating painful cuts — money carved from the Department of Education budget and from child health coverage, for example — it would be easy to find more compelling causes that deserve a multimillion-dollar infusion.

On the issue of alternatives, there is a way to amend the Constitution without a convention: Pass a bill in the Legislature to place the proposal on the ballot.

ConCon proponents scoff at that, pointing to the low percentage of proposals that make it through. But the bar for passage needs to be set high: The Constitution should not have to endure constant tinkering.

Nonetheless, it's a route that has been used successfully to enable more effective governance. In 2000, for example, the voters ratified an amendment that began the process of making the University of Hawai'i more autonomous. That process is still playing out.

Proponents of the convention are correct in saying that some constitutional changes — term limits or other changes to the electoral process — are difficult to pass because lawmakers are inclined to preserve the system that got them elected.

It's also true that other side benefits can accrue from a convention, including a renewal of civic participation.

Lawmakers should take the push for a ConCon as an expression of dissatisfaction with government that they must address.

During the coming session, there won't be much money to create new programs in the state, so legislators should devote some time to finding solutions for government inefficiency through constitutional amendments.

For instance, could a constitutional mandate or restructuring of government agencies hasten the state's conversion to renewable energy?

Would a reorganization enable the educational system to perform more effectively?

Since the ConCon is opposed primarily by the Capitol's Democratic majority, the responsibility rests with them to craft solutions to these shortcomings in state government.

A ConCon is unaffordable at this time. But the lawmakers who claim it's not needed must prove their point by taking on the tough problems and finding sensible solutions, whether or not it includes amending the Hawai'i State Constitution.