Independence Minnesota

Henry Thoreau once wrote that “For every thousand people hacking at the leaves of a problem, there is one person striking at the root.” In light of the current finger pointing between the governor and DFL legislative leaders over the less-than-satisfactory conclusion to the 2009 session, it is time to stop looking at the current players as the only problem and begin considering wholesale systematic reform to Minnesota’s political system.

 

Below are five electoral reforms are worth considering:

 

Reform #1: Instant Run-off Voting (IRV). It is a fact that our last three governors have won office with the support of less than 50 percent of the vote. This leads to an undemocratic situation whereby a candidate elected by a minority of voters is able to thwart the will of the majority. Under IRV, regardless of which party’s candidate wins the election, he or she would be able to rightfully claim they represent the will of the majority and could act accordingly.

 

Reform #2: Fusion Balloting. If IRV is too bold for people, fusion balloting – which allows other political parties such the Independence, Green, Constitution or Libertarian parties to cross-endorse like-minded candidates -- is another possibility. This reform would have the benefit of minimizing the “wasted-vote syndrome” as well as encouraging opposing political parties and candidates to work together on like-minded issues rather focusing exclusively on issues of disagreement.

 

Reform #3: A Unicameral Legislature. One reason this legislative session failed to produce a meaningful outcome was because DFL leaders in the majority-controlled House and Senate were not playing from the same game book. This is only slightly ridiculous because unlike the legislative bodies of our federal government, members of the Minnesota House and Senate have nearly identical jobs and represent the same geographic areas. There is really no other reason than tradition why Minnesota has a bicameral legislature. The solution may not be ideal but, given the state’s dismal recent history of unproductive sessions and special sessions, it is hard to imagine how a unicameral legislature – where members are more accountable to the public -- could do worse than the current system.

 

Reform #4: A Smaller Legislature. Undoubtedly, many people will oppose a unicameral legislature. If, however, they are unwilling to support this reform perhaps they would at least consider a smaller legislature. With a mind-boggling 201 representatives (near 40% of the total number of congressmen and senators needed to represent the entire country), Minnesota has more representatives per capita than all but a handful of states. In an era where businesses and families are cutting back, it is only fair that the state legislature do the same.

 

Reform #5: Initiative and Referendum. Alas, the creation of a smaller legislature is bound to run into the sticky problem that the legislature itself must vote to reduce its size. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize the inherent conflict of interest legislators face in downsizing their own jobs. Simply put, they are unlikely to do it. This then begs the question of who can, should and will do it. One obvious answer is the people themselves. Under a system of Initiative and Referendum, the citizens of Minnesota would be given the power to act when either the legislature can’t or won’t.

 

None of these reforms will cure all that ails our system but rather than playing the blame-game and pointing fingers at the other side, it is time to bring Minnesota’s political system into the 21^st century -- and we can do that by going to the root of the problem