Readers Write: Caucus system, state Sen. Nicole Mitchell, voting for RFK Jr.

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Self-described “longtime Republican activist” Annette Meeks, bemoaning the increased partisanship and general deterioration of our political system, has plenty of company (“Get rid of precinct caucuses, go to primary elections up and down the ballot,” Opinion Exchange, April 24). Polls suggest that most Americans dread the coming presidential election contest between two very unpopular candidates. It will get ugly here; if I lived in a “swing state” I might have to burn my television. But bizarrely, Meeks tries to blame precinct caucuses, dominated, she claims, by extremists.

I’ve been attending precinct caucuses for almost 60 years, and while I’ve seen an occasional extremist or two, they’ve always been in the minority at the caucuses I’ve attended. Plus, Minnesota is one of only nine states using a caucus system, not merely enough clout to determine the presidential candidates. Clearly, the problem lies elsewhere. When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016, millions of Americans, including prominent Republicans like John McCain, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, etc., expressed alarm. But in the end, most Republican leaders decided that their personal careers were more important than their values, and either caved to Trump or slid meekly out of sight; and have been replaced by people that Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush would not have taken seriously. And this, not caucuses, are why Republicans can’t win a statewide election in Minnesota. The Democrats, unfortunately, are scarcely better. I think Gov. Tim Walz has done a decent job overall, but I was furious when he told Rep. Dean Phillips to “stay in [his] lane.” Phillips has dropped out, and it seems unlikely that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Jessie Ventura is going to win.

The root of our problem is the duopoly of our two-party system. If this fall’s election fiasco results in the collapse of both the Republican and Democratic parties, we’ll all be better off down the road.

John K. Trepp, Minneapolis

•••

In her recent commentary, Meeks is correct that precinct caucuses are a major contributor to angry political division. But she doesn’t go far enough. In the caucus system, much less than 10% of citizens often decide who the rest of the voters can vote for. That’s not democracy. But we should scrap not only precinct caucuses for statewide and local elections, but also jettison primaries. Like caucuses, primaries also result in a small subset of voters deciding who the rest of us can vote for.

A better system would be a general election with multiple qualified candidates in which voters can rank them according to their preference. Qualification requirements might include a minimum number of signatures to get on the ballot, for example. A broader range of candidates and a vote ranking system would mean that every voter would impact who is elected, not just a select few. Political parties could still endorse, of course. And qualified candidates on the general ballot could self-describe the party they “belong to.” But let’s engage the electorate. Let’s give them tools to participate. Voter participation will increase. Candidates will have to listen to all citizens, not just the polarizing litmus-test edges of left or right. So, let’s scrap both caucuses and primaries, and give elections and our democracy back to our citizens.

Alan Arthur, Wayzata

•••

Meeks’ essay derogating the Minnesota political caucus system fails on three counts.

First, Meeks conflates the perceived authority of caucuses with the endorsement power of political conventions. However “hyperpartisan” (her word) caucus attendees may be as a group, they remain individuals with free will to vote as they deem appropriate during the subsequent political conventions, where candidates have the opportunity to make their cases and contend for party endorsements.

Secondly, Meeks insists caucuses and political primary elections are and must be mutually exclusive for the political parties to effectively represent the public will. To the contrary, Minnesota’s layered system, including caucuses, endorsing conventions and primaries, provides arguably the best of each system, with our primary elections either confirming or overruling the endorsements of the respective political conventions.

Finally, Meeks complains that the DFL has elected two governors and an attorney general without convention endorsement in the past 14 years, while Minnesota Republicans have failed to select any winning statewide officials since 2006. It appears that Meeks’ true intent, in proposing to eliminate the political caucus system, is to find a way to rehabilitate the moribund Republican Party of Minnesota.

Peter Hill, Minnetonka

•••

I hardly could disagree more with Meeks’ commentary on Minnesota elections.

First of all, candidates (such as I once was) come and go, but issues are always here for discussion, hopefully in a civil atmosphere. While participation in caucuses, alias town meetings, has decreased, this largely is due to the manner in which politics in this country has developed into prioritizing party ideology over national/international concerns. “Politics,” incidentally, derives from the Greek “politikos” and refers to being involved in the larger community reaching beyond one’s self. Thus, peaceful, meaningful grassroots engagement is to be promoted to help connect members of the community.

It behooves us to understand from where Meeks is coming. She was the deputy chief of staff for Newt Gingrich. Also, her organization, the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, is conducting a misguided and misinformed opposition to ranked-choice voting in our state.

Richard Laybourn, Bloomington

The writer was a Citizens Party candidate for Congress in the Third District.

There is a high degree of irony in Minnesota Senate Republicans’ current efforts to push for the expulsion of DFL Sen. Nicole Mitchell after her recent arrest (”Session upended by state senator’s arrest,” April 25). While Michell’s actions are concerning, Republicans are set to nominate as their candidate for president a man who has been charged with dozens of felonies in the past year. Given this context, it’s hard to see Senate Republicans’ action as anything more than a partisan effort to weaken the DFL’s political power.

Sam Benson, Minneapolis

Why am I ending my support for the Democratic Party? When compared to all the other ills of the world, there is none worse than war. War is hell. It is the ultimate evil that must be avoided. Take for example one snapshot into the lives of the people of Gaza. Yet, my Democratic U.S. representatives continue to fund war against Palestine, against Russia and a ramping up of war tensions with China.

I believe in protecting the environment, upholding women’s reproductive rights and funding public education. But I will tolerate any backsliding in progress in those areas rather than continue to vote for a party that has become the party of war. A party that doesn’t unequivocally stand against war and doesn’t advocate for peace is not a moral authority and cannot be trusted to govern. Like Martin Luther King Jr., I condemn “any organizer of war, regardless of his rank or nationality.” Given the choice between the party of war or the party of Donald Trump, the party of Trump is the lesser evil. However, my vote will go to the candidate who is willing to take on the military-industrial complex, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. That’s a vote against a duopoly that repeatedly tears apart countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.) for its own profits and global dominance.

Mark Robinson, St. Paul