Repeatedly Americans and Minnesotans express frustration that the range of political choices is limited to extremist candidates put forth by both the Democratic and Republican parties. They ask, why are there not viable third party alternatives? The answer is actually quite simple: The rules of politics are stacked against third parties and third party candidates, including in Minnesota and Minneapolis.
At one time, Minnesota hosted a vibrant tradition of third parties and candidates. In 1998 Jesse Ventura shocked the world by being elected governor as a third-party candidate in defiance of the establishment Republican and Democratic parties. There was the Green Party that qualified as a major party in 2000 with Ralph Nader’s presidential run. More recently, Legal Marijuana Now and the Legalize Cannabis parties also existed. Yet now, a quarter century after Ventura shocked the world, third parties are dead. This is despite the fact that the 2020 exit polls in Minnesota indicated 31% of the voters as independents. What has happened?
Third parties may be a victim of party polarization plaguing American politics. But alternatively, the polarization may be a consequence of the dominance of the two major parties and of the activists at the extreme of this polarization that dominate these two parties in Minnesota and Minneapolis, as well as across the country. In Minneapolis, a one-party city—activists in the DFL have the capacity to move city politics in ways that might not be shared by the general public. One good example—efforts by a few activists to Defund the Police lost a charter amendment by a significant measure in 2021.
Minnesota is a duopoly with both Republicans and Democrats writing the rules of elections and campaigns. Think of the two parties as two major corporations, each with their own market share. Neither of these corporations would like to see a viable alternative product hit the shelf for fear that such a rival might take votes away.
The Democratic and Republican parties in Minnesota write the campaign rules for elections, campaign funding, and how to qualify for the ballot. In Minneapolis, the DFL gets to write many local election rules. Last year, the DFL, which held a trifecta in Minnesota, raised the popular vote requirements for a party to qualify as a major party. Major party status brings with it benefits in terms of ballot access. The DFL legislature changed the rules to qualify as a major party. They did this in part for fear that the marijuana parties might eat into their majority. They subsequently went to court, and before a majority DFL Minnesota Supreme Court, the law was upheld, thereby making it more difficult for them to qualify for the ballot.
Within the two parties, there is a dominance of activists. It occurs because of the way the parties are organized and structured. We have the caucuses, for example, in Minnesota, in which so much of the work of the parties get the money, but at best, five percent of the population shows up to the caucuses. These are the individuals that help determine party platforms and pick candidates for office for their parties. They also pick the delegates who go to the state party conventions and who nominate candidates for state office.
Moreover, years ago, Minnesota moved its primaries from after Labor Day to August. It did so even though there was significant evidence when this decision was being made that moving the primary to the August would decrease voter participation. An August primary is inferior to moving it to perhaps June when school was still in session and people were paying into politics.
The results have been abysmal in terms of turnout in the 2024 primaries in Minnesota. According to the Secretary of State, less than 514,000 individuals participated in the primary, this approximately 14% of the population. In the hotly contested Fifth District congressional race between Ilhan Omar and Don Samuels, barely 24% of the voters cast ballots. In a congressional district that is overwhelming DFL, winning the primary effectively elects one to Congress. But worse, an even smaller handful of activists at the DFL Convention picked the party nominee. Thus, a few party members decide who goes to Congress. Those who are independents or members of any party besides the DFL have no voice in this election. The low turnout in caucuses and in primaries benefits the party activists who sometimes hold views that are different and contrary to the rest of the party and certainly the general electorate.
Another way broader voter turnout is suppressed is with off-year local elections for mayor and city council. Local elections that do not coincide with presidential or congressional elections have dramatically lower turnout than those that occur at the same time as those elections. When they do coincide, turnout increases significantly. Who winds up voting in off-year elections are those party activists more interested in politics compared to the rest of the population. Even if their views are not different, it is still an unrepresentative sample of voters who decide elections. Major party activists love this arrangement—it gives them a disproportionate voice or weight of influence.
The rules are stacked against broad based voter choice and third parties. What should be done? There are a variety of reforms that are possible.
One is moving the primary to June at a time when more people are paying attention to elections.
Two, move local elections to coincide with congressional or presidential elections.
Three, Minnesota could switch to a top two in the primary. By that, it could be an open primary where individuals can opt to vote for any people they want, regardless of party, and the top two in the primary go on to face each other in the general election.
Four, the threshold to qualify for major party status could be dropped to a reasonable threshold of two to three percent of voting population. Minnesota has one of the most difficult and onerous sets of rules to qualify for ballot access.
Five, Minnesota could follow the lead of New York State, allowing for fusion tickets. Fusion laws allow for candidates to be endorsed by more than one party in New York State. This cross-party endorsement has tremendously helped third parties grow. More than 25 years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota’s banning of fusion was constitutional. It’s time to change the rules to allow for fusion voting.
Six, many have suggested that ranked choice voting is a viable way to produce more moderate candidates. The jury is still out on that proposition. Ranked choice voting seems to moderate debate and political language, but its use has mostly been confined to liberal enclaves in Minnesota across the country, where there’s very little evidence and opportunity for centrist, moderate, or alternative candidates to run.
Seven, implement multi-member districts in the legislature or city council races where voters get to vote for more than one candidate to represent them. Right now, in single member districts the winner-take-all rule applies. This means that even district if 55%-45%, Democrat, Republicans or those with other partisan views get no voice or representation.
Another possibility is the use of proportional voting, allowing for parties to be represented in the legislature based upon the percentage of popular vote that they will receive in an election. Proportional voting and multi-member districting would require significant changes in how the legislature is structured, but evidence from Europe, where both are in use, indicate that they are superior to widening voters choices compared to the single member winner take all voting systems in the United States.
Finally, the state could institute public financing for campaigns and fronting money to third party candidates if they meet certain reasonable qualifications. Ventura’s victory in 1998 was in part a product of public financing, but the rules that were in place then are very different than they are now.
Overall, the narrowness of the range of political options and alternatives in Minnesota and Minneapolis is clearly a consequence of deliberate rules and choices made by the two major political parties acting as duopolies. Or in the case of Minneapolis—a DFL monopoly. Alter these rules, and maybe it would mitigate the polarization and give voters within the two parties and those who declare themselves as independents a greater range of choices upon which to represent their interests.
