Uygur said he feared that the needs of citizens have become irrelevant in the political process.

And Christopher Blazejewski, a Rhode Island state representative, expressed his concern that present-day issues are so vastly different from those imagined by the Constitution’s authors that the document is simply out-of-date.

Opponents of the initiative expressed concerns that a runaway convention would lead delegates to deviate from an assigned agenda, resulting in radical and unprecedented changes to the Constitution.

“The timing is not appropriate for this type of experimentation. America is like a ship in the middle of a storm,” said Alexandra Filindra, a political scientist from William Paterson University, echoing the opinion held by many that the status quo might be less risky than a new approach.

As the weekend’s activities came to a close, panelists reflected on the uncertain future of a constitutional convention.

“One thing I really learned is how hard it’s going to be to bridge the gap between the willing participant, those who show up, and the general public,” Lessig said.

Meckler seemed even more undecided about the initiative’s future, saying he was “neither for nor against” the idea. “For me, the point [of the conference] was to get people in a room together to discuss these things,” he said.

-Staff writer Zachary N. Bernstein can be reached at zachary.bernstein@college.harvard.edu