Have you wondered why Minneapolis has a city council majority driven by ideology rather than by facts and analysis? A city council that would rather help the US Secretary of State solve problems in the Middle East instead of improving public safety in Minneapolis? The answer is that In Minneapolis’ 2023 city elections, there were 248,962 registered voters, but 170,226 of them – more than two-thirds – did not vote. Only 31% of voters turned out.
Minneapolis holds its elections in odd-numbered years, when nothing else is on the ballot. Ideologues vote in large numbers no matter what, the rest of us, not so much.
Two years before, though, we did better. We had a 54% voter turnout. This was influenced by the persistence of COVID, and the still-fresh memories of the murder of George Floyd. Also, there were two high-profile charter amendments on the ballot. Even so, only half of voters showed up.
If in 2025, campaigns could motivate just 56,000 of the 170,000 non-voters to come back to the voting booth, we could restore a city council majority consisting of mature and experienced leaders who will work diligently to address city problems. They’ll leave foreign policy to the State Department.
This could happen. We know it can happen, because it did happen in 2021. The pandemic, charter amendments, and even the George Floyd murder may have faded. But in their place, we have impatience with the slow pace of public safety improvements – for example, by the time the Third Precinct police officers move back into the Third Precinct, it will have taken longer than the government of France needed to rebuild the Notre Dame Cathedral. Many residents will face quite possibly the third consecutive year with double-digit property tax increases.
I have a background in statistical analysis, and have run some numbers showing what will likely happen if we pick up 56,000 more voters – people who have voted previously, but who sat out the 2023 election. In this article I’ll skip the arcane details, but would be glad to send my calculations, even discuss them, with anyone on request.
I will note that my mathematical model assumes the returning voters will favor more practical candidates over the ideologues, by a 65%/35% margin. Does that seem aggressive, or overly optimistic? Maybe, but probably not, for two reasons.
One reason is not without irony. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which has been the source of organizing energy that brought us our current city council majority, has superb organizing power. You might not like all of their ideas, but boy, do they turn out their supporters. As a result, they don’t have a lot more supporters left to gain, they already have them all.
The other reason is because those lapsed voters who sat out the 2023 election won’t be motivated to come back because they think everything is just dandy. They will come back because they are concerned, very concerned, about the direction the city is going. They won’t be coming back to the polls in hopes of getting more of the same.
When the numbers get crunched, ward by ward, it turns out that in three wards (5, 7 and 2) it is highly plausible that a more practical candidate can replace an idealogue. If voter turnout bounces back to 2021 levels, and if the 65%/35% split assumption holds (plus one or two other technical assumptions in the model), then a Ward 5 challenger could win by as much as 16% of the votes cast; a Ward 7 challenger by 14%, a Ward 2 challenger by 7%. A challenger in Ward 10 could also win, but the model forecasts a much closer race, virtually a toss-up. It helps that excellent challengers are running in each of these wards.
You could add Ward 11 to the list, because the incumbent, who often voted with the DSA-affiliated majority, is not running. While there are shades of difference between the two candidates there, both show strong tendencies to pay attention to city business, not to ideology.
Flipping all, or even most, of these wards will likely restore a city council majority grounded in good judgment about improving public safety, developing strategies to strengthen city finances and go easier on residential taxpayers, and continuing to increase housing options for those who most need them.
David Therkelsen has been a homeowner in Minneapolis for 50 years, and attentive to city and school affairs for all of that time. Professionally, he headed two American Red Cross field units, and at one time was co-chief of staff to the President of American Red Cross in Washington, DC. Later he was executive director of Crisis Connection, a state-wide mental health counseling agency. Dave held faculty appointments at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and recently co-authored a book about the history of transfusion medicine and blood banking.
David, thank you for this piece. Besides the city council, for city-wide races like mayor and park board at-large, people need to use ALL their vote options. It seems like many people just vote for one person, when they could be voting for three people. If people don’t use their 2nd and 3rd choices, they are giving away their voice to others. This is especially true for park board at-large, where there are 3 seats. Please use all three votes.
David. Your 35%-65% figure came out of nowhere. And you admit multiple times its an assumption. You based a whole article on that? Where’s the proof that 2 out of 3 new voters would be inclined to vote for the moderate,
Wade, it did not come out of nowhere. Of course it is an assumption, all modeling is built with some assumptions. Many assumptions are well validated and prove to be very accurate.
For starters, the model does not posit new voters. It posits registered voters, who did vote in 2021 but not in 2023. The assumption is further based, as stated, on the fact that, much to their credit, DSA has superb organizing capabilities, and therefore does not have much remaining upside potential. Their voters turn out. Further, as the article states, for those who voted previously but stayed home in 2023, the motivation to come back would not be because they think everything is just fine under the current city council majority. Rather, it would be because they want public safety, they want cops, they want a strategy so that declining commercial property values don’t continue to result in double-digit increases in residential property taxes, and they want an end to the current council’s preference for theatrics over good governance.
There is another assumption I left out of the article but that is pretty bankable: that the incumbents will lose 5% of their 2023 votes. This simply always happens to incumbents. Some move, some die, some decide they don’t like their previous choice so much.
The MinneapolisTimes article was drawn from an earlier, more detailed paper prepared to help guide candidates – candidates with experience and judgment, of course – to a winning strategy. If we truly get back to 2021 voting levels, it is highly probable these kinds of candidates will regain a majority. Won’t be 13-0, nor should it be. There are enough DSA-thinking people in Minneapolis that they should be at the table. But they are far from a majority (if they were, they’d run as DSA). They deserve perhaps 3 seats, but not 7 or 8.
You have seemed very knowledgeable, but I don’t know whether you are in the inner circle of DSA strategy-making. If you are, you would know that their strategists are very aware that low voter turnout benefits them. That’s why those of us who oppose DSA’s disproportionate influence want higher turnouts. That’s the point of my article.
btw I am back from my travels and still open to that cup of coffee or whatever if you want to do this at some point.
Thank you David!
The only way this works out for the DSA aligned is for them to hope for, and even develop, LOWER voter turnout…and that not too many actually READ the DSA’s platform, to know to know. 🤔
BUT, since many more are aware and informed this time, shooting for 55-65% turn out, as in “We REALLY do love our city.” 👏
Excerpt..
“If you are, you would know that their strategists are very aware that low voter turnout benefits them. That’s why those of us who oppose DSA’s disproportionate influence want higher turnouts. That’s the point of my article.”
Minneapolis can do what Saint Paul just did – change to even-year elections, and tie the City Council election to the Presidential. It took a grassroots petition effort, but civic-minded organizers gathered the necessary signatures and made it a referendum, last year, which Saint Paul voters overwhelmingly approved (despite the Council’s efforts to have them reject it). Start now, and get it on the 2028 ballot.
Agree, democracy in Minneapolis would be healthier if we do this.
Terry, some of the advocacy groups have survey research that shows safety and property taxes are THE issues, for ordinary citizens and voters (they are not political junkies like you and me). What will be necessary to motivate them to vote will be candidates and campaigns who do in 2025 what they did not do in 2021 and 2023: tell voters, explicitly, which brand of DFLers will address these issues maturely and responsibly, and which will continue to confuse performative theatrics with sound policy-making. Which is to say, solid candidates need to make certain voters in their wards understand that the city council majority we have today is there because we have allowed DSA idealogues to take over. If we want something better, we can’t stay home on Nov. 4.
Excellent analysis of voting history. You explain a reasonable path to victory for candidates. It will be interesting to see how many residents turn out to vote this year. Will it be safety or property taxes or something else that motivates people to vote?