Minnesota voters stand apart, at least in part

Tuesday's election brought gains for Republicans in many states and shifted control of the U.S. Senate and Minnesota House to the GOP. But Minnesotans stood sufficiently apart from the national trend to return DFLer Al Franken to the U.S. Senate for a second term and re-elect DFL Gov. Mark Dayton.

Franken's victory over GOP challenger Mike McFadden was a prominent blue spot on a U.S. Senate map that turned Republican red as votes were tallied across the country. In many states, Republicans succeeded in casting the election as a referendum on President Obama. As they assume control of the Senate in January, they may believe that they defeated him.

We hope they soon recognize that they did not. Obama is still president through 2016. What's more, as of Tuesday, the Republican Party's national reputation and future fate is linked with Obama's as never before. The new Republican-controlled Congress and the Democratic president will either succeed together, or together earn the nation's contempt for inaction on pressing national problems. Political self-interest ought to compel at least some collaboration.

Franken overcame McFadden's criticism for voting too often in concert with Obama's wishes. In fact, Franken often made alliances with Republican senators in pursuit of legislative goals. But in a second term, and especially if he's in the minority, Franken's effectiveness will depend on seeking more common ground with Republicans. He won the Star Tribune Editorial Board's endorsement in this election because he has shown that he is up to that job.

Dayton, who bested Republican Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson, will need to beef up his bipartisan chops as well with the state House shifting to GOP control. (The state Senate was not on the ballot this year and remains in DFL hands.) State government has not fared well in recent years when power has been split between the two big parties. But partial government shutdowns in 2005 and 2011 also coincided with a weak state economy and tight money. The economy and state government's bottom line are both healthier today. Keeping both strong will be Dayton's challenge in the next four years.

American government's already depleted capacity for bipartisanship took another hit in this year's campaign. It was characterized by massive efforts to instill doubt, mistrust, fear and loathing in citizens' minds in order to sway their votes — or perhaps to dissuade them from voting at all. Many Americans were glad to see Election Day arrive as much for the cease-fire in campaign ads it brought as for the opportunity to participate in state and national governance.

It's increasingly clear that the nation has grown frustrated with a political system that smears candidates' reputations before they arrive in office and then hamstrings them while they are there. Too many Washington politicians spend as much or more time on fundraising as on policymaking. Increasingly, Americans are seeking ways to lift the nation's politics to a higher plane.

Some will look anew at campaign-finance reform and will consider a constitutional amendment to allow governments to limit corporate spending on political speech, overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. That's a long shot. We've advocated a more feasible change: requiring disclosure of all sources of independent campaign spending, including the so-called "dark money" now shielded by nonprofit status.

We're struck by the vast difference in the tone and substance of campaign messages this year compared with the more temperate Minneapolis mayoral contest in 2013. To be sure, an off-year election in a DFL-dominated city is different from the national midterms in many respects — but a key one is Minneapolis' use of ranked-choice voting.

Mayoral candidates didn't air scowling gray photos of one another, bash one another's hairstyles or personal wealth, or deal in ugly innuendo about each other's personal traits. That wasn't because they were a kinder, gentler political species. It was because they were seeking to be the second choices of voters whose first choices were their opponents. Ranked-choice voting presents candidates with a disincentive to dish out offensive personal attacks.

Our guess is that even voters who backed Tuesday's winners are finding it hard today to feel good about the campaign that produced their preferred result. If that's the case, an opportunity has arrived for promoters of ranked-choice voting and other electoral reforms to swell their ranks.