As people start to speculate on the impact of the 2023 legislative session on the 2024 State House Elections the questions about what became law will mainly be shaped by where people reside and whether they received a direct benefit. On balance, if a person feels they received a greater benefit than their increased obligations they will be satisfied and likely to support and likely to support the incumbent House member if they vote for the legislation which helped.
Our current situation in Minnesota is a hyper-extension of vested interest politics, what did you do for me and what are you going to do for me later? This Me(ism) is rampant in both political extremes and effectively makes the two extremities align. It creates an expectation of outcome-based legislation and becomes nothing short of transactional.
Last week, in the Axios Survey of Swing Voters, they scratch the surface of this reality, but as is evident in the assessment it is a small sample size and does not constitute a poll. It recalls the inception of Checks & Balances first offerings in December of 1995.
We thought a republishing of those articles from some of Minnesota’s political class might offer some insight. We have the thoughts of our Publisher Shawn Towle, former Congressman Tim Penny, Political Science Professor Steven Schier, and former legislator Pam Neary.
We encourage you to peruse our archival information, which is always available to paid subscribers, but also, is a trove of Minnesota political history, which is often forgotten and curiously relevant nearly thirty years later.