Many Minnesotans, myself included, pride ourselves living in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.  Many that move to our state, however, do not notice the lakes but rather our taxes.  Instead of referring to 10,000 lakes, they begin to call Minnesota the Land of 10,000 Taxes.

For the first time in Minnesota history, though, our state government will  be smaller this year than it was last year. While this sounds like a great day for fiscal conservative principles, many have argued that this is putting an undue burden on local governments trying to provide “essential” local services.

In a recent article in the St. Paul Pioneer press, Bill Sallisbury interviews our Current Minnesota State Auditor, Rebecca Otto which provoked me to ask a few questions after reading her comments below.

The Auditor points out, through the 2008 City Finances Report, “between 1999 and 2008, property-tax revenue cities collected grew 102 percent, compared with a 10 percent  increase in revenue from other governmental sources….the proportion of revenue that cities derived from property taxes grew from 24 percent in 1999 to 35 percent in 2008.”

The Auditor goes on the say that “if this trend continues, it will further increase the reliance on property taxes as a source of revenue and with the foreclosure crisis and the tight economy, this trend is troubling.”

Part of this problem revolves around what is referred to as Local Government Aid (LGA) being cut from the state budget.  Many fiscal conservatives see this as a necessary budget move to remove local dependency on the state.  Liberal groups, however, have targeted this cut as cruel and inhumane as local governments budget with the assumption they will receive LGA funds.  This opposition underscores the fundamental problem with all government subsidies: the risk of dependency by the recipient.  To read more, check out the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota’s interesting work on how Local Government Aid’s impacts local fiscal matters, you can download the pdf here.

Don’t we, as the people, want more control over local government issues?  In most cases we can impact local change quicker than national change.  I don’t know about you but I’d want my voice to matter on the local level and the ability to stand up to my local government officials who simply want more money to throw at perceived problems.  If you are unsure, ask yourself this question:  Do you, as Minnesota residents, believe that you’re quality of life has risen 102%?

How do you propose we fix this problem?  What have your local officials said about LGA and the prospect of raising property taxes?  Post your thoughts below, e-mail me at Tom@americanmajority.org, or re-tweet this on Twitter.

I wrote this blog entry before the 09′ Municipal elections but believe it is still relevant today as many groups are trying to enact Minneapolis and St. Paul IRV models for state wide elections. Given the historic 08′ senate recount many election law changes may be coming in the state of MN including a Photo ID push, Judicial Selection method changes, primary date changes, and several others. Below is my contention with the municipal IRV changes.

———————————————————————————————————————-

I recently moved across the River from St. Paul to Minneapolis. The first piece of mail I received was an informational piece put out by the Minneapolis Elections Department. I failed to realize that other than switching my billing address with Comcast and Excel energy, I needed to learn how to vote again. Hopefully in the coming years you won’t have to.

Minneapolis is the first City in Minnesota to switch from traditional voting to “Ranked Choice Voting” (RCV) for their municipal elections. Some people may know the system as Instant Runoff Voting or IRV. This is a result of a public referendum in 2006 where the voters of Minneapolis chose this system by a slight majority of 52%. I’m not concerned about who voted, who didn’t vote. I’m most certainly not concerned about discussing ACORN or any of the things our 24-hour news cycle has taken from a YouTube clip simply to get my attention.  I am concerned that this system is a drastic change that will rock the fundamentals of our electoral system. The flaws that people see in the system could have been solved with simple common sense solutions.

The voters of Minneapolis will not use Ranked Choice Voting for all elections, but rather just for municipal elections. Obviously the city recognizes it does not have jurisdiction over statewide elections or elections reaching beyond the city limits. However, are we to imagine that voters will not be more confused or perplexed in those non-municipal elections? Nobody could think this after witnessing all the voting irregularities in this state last November. No voter could be that naïve after coming off the heels of one of the longest and most expensive recounts between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Not to mention that voters will have to wait longer for the results of RCV according to recent reports, you cannot leave a choice blank, and ultimately your vote and mine are not considered equal.

We can all agree that things need to change about our flawed voting system where thousands of absentee ballots were wrongfully rejected last November. However, to completely overhaul the process by implementing this system is not the answer. Fair Vote Minnesota, one of several groups who successfully pushed for Ranked Choice Voting, claim that the RCV “maintains the majority rule”. Let us examine this. What this means is that a candidate running for Mayor must cross the 50% threshold to be considered victorious. Sounds simple enough. How you get there is a bit trickier. If candidate A and candidate B both receive 40% of the vote and candidate C receives 20% of the vote, the race would go to the “second choice” on the ballot. What happens here is important. Those 20% of voters who voted for candidate C have their votes re-allocated to candidates A and B pushing either of them across the finish line.

I agree that it sounds great and terrific that the person elected received 51% or more of the vote, but the way that candidate got there is fundamentally flawed. Doesn’t it seem as if the voters supporting candidate C chose the winner ultimately? Didn’t candidate C voters essentially have their vote counted twice? What happened to the idea of one person, one vote? Isn’t their something flawed with a Ranked Choice Voting system where the candidate who receives the most 1^st choice votes could lose based on a second choice or even third choice ballots?

When Coleman and Franken were tied we didn’t have Secretary of State Mark Ritchie summon all Dean Barkley voters to come back to the polls on November 5^th2008 and cast their ballots another time to decide the winner between Coleman and Franken. Why would we accept a system where that is our definition of fair and equal representation? We have taken a short cut because it is not politically expedient rather than forcing our elected officials to make tough decisions. Every voter has the ability to select his or her choice, not his or her choice if those people aren’t running, or are tied.

Everyone likes to imagine new ways to encourage people to vote or be more pro-active in public policy. This inherently un-democratic and flawed system is not the answer. The answer is political leaders who don’t disenfranchise the citizens, actually better our lives in a small but substantial way for once, and actually deliver on promises that at this point are all just empty rhetoric. The reason this is important is Minneapolis, and potentially St. Paul (voters will have a similar referendum this November) are test drives of the RCV system that many groups want to see implemented state wide. I believe there will be some changes in our voting system addressed at the capitol this session or next.  However, I hope to see more common sense changes rather than disenfranchising the citizens of Minnesotans whose vote only counts once.

**** SORRY, DUE TO MAXIMUM CAPACITY, REGISTRATION FOR THIS TRAINING HAS CLOSED

If you have any questions, please contact American Majority Minnesota at 651-261-0954 or email tom@americanmajority.org. ****

Every elected official, from school board member to State Legislator to the President of the United States plays a vital role in shaping the policies and direction of our communities, states, and nation. These offices deserve men and women who are grounded in the principles of liberty and individual freedom.

American Majority is hosting a Candidate Training on January 23rd at the Medina Entertainment Center, 500 Highway 55, Hamel, MN 55340. Registration begins at 8:30 am and the training will run from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.

Regardless of experience, American Majority’s Candidate Training Program makes it easier! American Majority Candidate Training Seminars are designed specifically to educate candidates on every level how to run effective and victorious campaigns and prepare them to become successful elected officials.

Topics to be covered in the seminar include:

• Usage of traditional and new media
• Campaign planning
• Successful fundraising tactics
• Grassroots organization

Upon completion of the seminar, candidates will receive continuing education materials, access to podcasts and other presentations, communications curriculum, and suggestions to help them utilize think-tank resources.

The cost is $50 per candidate and $25 for each additional attendees (spouse, campaign staff, campaign volunteers, etc.).

Please click here to use our online reservation system and secure your place now! If you have any questions, please contact American Majority Minnesota at 651-261-0954 or email tom@americanmajority.org.