The Associated Students of Madison’s Constitutional Committee listened to questions and concerns regarding the newly proposed constitution Tuesday, but only from a few students.

According to Jeff Wright, the committee expected a much larger attendance than the 10 to 12 students who were present, but he attributed the shortfall to various other events scheduled at the same time.

“I wouldn’t call that successful, but at the same time I wouldn’t call it disastrous,” Wright said, adding the committee is “hoping to have a significantly larger turnout in listening sessions next week.”

Johnny Tackett, representative for the School of Medicine and Public Health, said a listening session for medical students about the presidential health care plans, midterms for undergraduates and the area in which the meeting took place all contributed to the low turnout of the session, designed to target medical students.

“I do not think it was a lack of effort contacting with students; it was just poor timing,” Tackett said, adding the Qdoba food offered by the School of Medicine session outweighed the chips, water and donated Toppers pizza at the Constitutional session.

Ben Carter, the law school representative for the committee, said the new draft aims to address the inadequacies of the old constitution, such as its low student input and a general sense of dissatisfaction among the student body.

The new revision calls for a more centralized government, which would create a more simplified system and enhance accountability for elected officials, as well as provide more incentives for students to actively participate in government by voting and running for office.

“ASM has been successful in the past, but because there are more clear points of authority, because it’s much more centralized, it’s going to be able to accomplish a lot more, and it’s going to do it much faster,” Carter said.

Tyler Junger, a UW sophomore running for ASM’s Student Services Finance Committee, said he attended the listening session because he doubted the new draft’s alterations were all that different from the old constitution.

“Before coming, I thought it was a really bad idea to change the constitution the way they were going to,” Junger said. “The way it’s been explained I like it a lot better. The problem before was that the language was too harsh, and it pushed students away from considering the student government a legitimate student voice. I like what they’re doing.”

An important goal of the Constitutional Committee is to create a feeling among students that the constitution is specifically for them, created in account with students’ opinions, Carter said.

“Ultimately, I think a student-created document will pass among students,” Carter said.

–Jacquelyn Ryberg contributed to this report.