ARTS & FARCES internet

As expected, Green party gubernatorial candidate Ken Pentel, today announced his Democracy Package in a media conference at the Minnesota state capitol. Consisting of six components, Pentel’s Democracy Package attempts to bring balance back to political campaigns and elections in the state:

1. Instant runoff voting. Instant runoff voting (IRV) is a method of voting in which citizens rank candidates in order of preference, rather than making only a single choice for each office. In an IRV election, if there is no initial majority winner, a runoff recount can be conducted immediately, without need for another election. If no candidate receives a majority of the first choice votes, the candidate with the least number of first votes is eliminated. The second choices from the ballots are then transferred to the remaining candidates and the ballots are recounted. This process continues until a single candidate emerges with a majority of votes. According to Pentel, IRV ensures that the winner of a race with more than two candidates emerges with a clear majority.
2. Proportional representation. Our current “winner-takes-all” form of representative government is outmoded and prevents all the views of the citizenry from being represented in the legislature. Under the proportional representation method of election favored by Pentel, the winners in each district are determined by the proportion of the votes each party receives. Larger districts are used, and several members are elected from each district. For example, in a district with ten representatives, where the Democratic party received 50% of the votes, the Green party received 30%, and the Republican and Independence parties each received 10%, the parties would each respectively receive five, three, one, and one of the ten representative seats.
3. Voters’ guide. Pentel maintains that the state of Minnesota should provide voter information guides to each eligible voter. Already in use in California, these guides would present background information and a statement written by each candidate and the full text of any referenda to be voted on along with supporting and opposing arguments. Pentel estimates that the voters’ guides would cost the state US$0.40 per household including printing and mailing. With an estimated 3.5 million households in the state, such an endeavor would cost a total of US$2.8 million each election cycle (separate voters’ guides for the primary and general election); a paltry sum for each citizen to be able to walk into his or her polling place well-informed. Pentel distributed a mockup of a typical voters’ guide during his address.
4. Initiative and referendum. When citizens find their legislators unresponsive, they should be able to gather signatures in support of a proposal and get the issue on the ballot. According to Pentel, this will make sure citizens’ voices are heard.
5. Voter holiday. Pentel believes that the right to vote should be honored and celebrated as a holiday. As governor, he would support making the first Tuesday in November a state holiday, ensuring that everyone has the time to carefully reflect, consider, and cast their vote.
6. Campaign finance reform. “People feel disenfranchised from their government because they feel big money is running the show,” Pentel said during his address. Thomas Jefferson recognized this possibility as early as 1816, when he wrote, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of the country.” Pentel states simply that we need to “eliminate the corrupting influence of big money donors,” and supports Senator John Marty’s clean money campaign finance bill (SF 90) and “other legislation that will move us toward full public financing of elections.”

Of all the components of his Democracy Package, Pentel spent the most time on campaign finance reform, calling upon Hamline University professor of public administration and management, David Schultz, to explain some of the finer points of political spending in the state. Schultz distributed copies of his report, The March of Money: 2001 Political Spending Trends in Minnesota, which makes some alarming findings:

• Total soft money contributions have increased drastically, from US$2.2 million in 1995 to more than US$15.4 million in 2001.
• From 1997 to 2001, soft money contributions rose by 281% while hard money contributions increased by 48%.
• Of the ten largest individual campaign contributors in 2001, all ten were themselves candidates.
• During 2001, a total of US$8.4 million was spent on lobbying efforts, with almost US$7.4 of that spent to influence the state legislature.
• During 2001, lobbyists and political action committees (PACs) spent US$46,435 per legislator to achieve influence. The 2000 Census reported the median household income in the state as US$50,865.

During his overview, Schultz stated that soft money attack ads depress voter turnout by as much as 5% and are indistinguishable from ads run by candidates. Pentel said the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill doesn’t go far enough because it only limits soft money ads during the last 60 days before the general election. “Votes are like energy,” Pentel claimed. “Candidates follow it.”