What do people give a rip about?

Posted at 1:17 PM on April 12, 2006 by Bob Collins (17 Comments)

I'm sitting here watching the bonding bill debate on the floor of the Minnesota House, surrounded by lots of charts that may or may not be telling me something interesting. I'm not sure, yet. Charts do that to me.

As you may know, as part of the Campaign 2006 Web site, we've been asking folks to fill out a form to ask what issues candidates should be focusing on in the coming campaign. Ideally, this information will then be given to show producers, hosts, and reporters for some cred.

The folks who are doing this, the Public Insight Journalism team at MPR, haven't yet processed these to weight them according to registered voter breakdown, which might be important because Republicans and Democrats -- and I know I could knock you over with a feature here -- have different takes on the issues, including what they are.

Let's break it down between U.S. House and Senate races and the state-level races.

SENATE AND HOUSE

Republican rankings (first choice)
1. National security
2. Abortion
3. Taxes
4. Immigration
5. War in Iraq
6. Federal budget
7. Health care
8. Social security
9. Energy
10.Patriot Act

Democrats (first choice)
1. War in Iraq
2. Health care
3. Federal budget
4. Global warming
5. National resources/environment
6. Ethics
7. Energy
8. Abortion
9. Early childhood education
10. Higher education

STATE-LEVEL

Democrats
1. K-12 funding
2. Health care
3. Early childhood education
4. Transportation
5. Natural resources/environment
6. Higher education
7. Gay marriage
8. Energy
9. Budget
10.Local government aid

Republicans
1. Taxes
2. Gay marriage
3. Abortion
4. Budget
5. K-12 funding
6. Health care
7. Crime
8. Immigratin
9. Higher education
10. Stadiums

None of those are terribly surprising, and keep in mind that's just a list of what people's first choice is. When you drill down a bit and look at other issues they're interested in, it gets a bit more fascinating. Atop that list is electoral reform.

I find this fascinating, and am encouraging this to get into some polling we're going to do. One of the bills that's languished up at the Capitol this year -- and gotten no spotlight at all -- is one that would reduce the size of the Legislature and make it so some members of the Senate are up for election every other year. There's also the possibility of instant run-off voting.

What issues are you interested in seeing get some more publicity? Let us know.

Comments (17)

Upon reviewing the opposite results of the preliminary Campaign 2006 priorities (Dems tops are: K-12 funding/Health care/Early childhood education Reps:Taxes/Gay marriage/Abortion) it's difficult to see where bi-partican compromise is possible. Can anyone think outside of the box for a possible state-wide ticket like Arnie Carlson and Dee Long who might come togehter in ONE unique ticket to pull us together? Maybe it's time we forgot parties and started lookng at individuals ?

Posted by Mpls voter | April 12, 2006 4:49 PM

Amen to that. Try Peter Hutchinson?

Posted by Robert Rossi | April 12, 2006 6:12 PM

One thing I really dislike about lists of concerns like this is that they are one-dimensional. They don't demonstrate whether a person is "for" or "against" the item listed, only that he is concerned about the issue. To illustrate, let me suggest, hypothetically, that a majority of Democrats chose "Gun Control" as their No. 1 issue of concern. Let me further suggest that a majority of Republicans also chose "Gun Control" as their No. 1 issue of concern.

What does that tell you? It doesn't tell you a darn thing.

Unless you make huge assumptions, you have no way of knowing whether a person is concerned that there are not enough gun control laws or whether he is concerned that there are too many. A gun hater and a gun lover might both list "gun control" as their No. 1 concern, but obviously, they will have opposing views on what should be done about their concerns.

You might be tempted to assume that Democrats want more gun control and that Republicans want less gun control, but that is pure speculative folly. I know Democrats who are gun enthusiasts and Republicans who are as scared of a gun as they are a black widow spider.

I am angered by the polls I receive from my elected officials asking me for my opinions. The last time a Democrat asked me if "Gun Control" was an important issue to me, I was allowed to check a box for "yes" or leave it blank for "no." In reality, gun control is an issue of dire concern to me, but I could not answer the question as posed. You see, if I answered, "Yes," my Democratic representative would assume that I wanted MORE gun control, but if I left the question unchecked, then she would assume that I don't care what she does about gun control.

She knows what she's doing, of course. She is hoping that anyone with a concern about gun control, whether for it or against it, will check the box. She will then interpret the results to her own satisfaction. She will no doubt count any person expressing a concern over gun control as a person desiring to have all guns collected and melted down. When she votes against guns she can pretend that she has a mandate, posting her poll numbers as proof.

Republicans do the same thing with leading questions. Both parties are very clever at presenting the public with Hobson's Choice when it comes to addressing current issues.

If MPR is to be fair when using polls, it must stop presenting one-dimensional lists of issues to be ranked, and instead, give respondents the ability to say whether they are for or against an issue such as increasing gun control. Cut out the guess work and assumptions, and give people unambiguous choices that represent the full spectrum of views.

Posted by Doug Harrison | April 12, 2006 8:37 PM

I was just going to write a post similar to the one Doug Harrison just posted. I, too, feel that the questions in the Public Insite Journalism project should have been more specific. While it is easy to assume that a person who self-identifies as a Democrat and chooses abortion as their topic of most concern would also identify as pro-choice (and then their concern would presumably be protecting reproductive rights), we all know what they say about assuming. Also, what do you do if someone self-identifies as independant? What assumptions do you make about their views on the war, abortion, the environment, immigration, etc...?

Perhaps you could have people resubmit their polls as to get more of an accurate gauge of public opinion.

Posted by A. Martin | April 12, 2006 9:48 PM

I understand your review was a quick summary, but you only summarized the two political extremes and forgot about the rest of us. Your results are not at all surprising making them of little interest.

What would be interesting is comparing the posted results with the results of Independents. I can assume more Democrats and Republicans answered you survey than did Independents but it is the centrist voice that represents the majority of Minnesotans.

Posted by Laura Knudsen | April 12, 2006 10:48 PM

If a gun control and a gun advocate both list guns as an issue, it DOES tell you something. It tells you guns as an issue means something to them. It doesn't MATTER whether they're for or against it. It means the candidates should be forced to make THEIR positions clear, becuase the voters care about the issue.

That's not insignificant.

Posted by Bob Collins | April 13, 2006 11:15 AM

How do you know we only listed the political extremes?

Posted by Bob Collins | April 13, 2006 11:16 AM

//What assumptions do you make about their views on the war, abortion, the environment, immigration, etc...?

What do I make of it? If they list any of those as their top concern, I make of it that the candidates should spell out their position on it.

THAT was the point. We weren't asking for people's positions. We were asking for what issues concerned them...at least to the point where they wanted to hear the candidates talk about that issue.

Posted by Bob Collins | April 13, 2006 11:17 AM

Yeah, what about the breakdown for non-Republocrats? I took the thing and I know there were a lot more choices than just Democrat and Republican.

1/3 of Minnesotans consider themselves independent of the two major parties. You're not going to tell us we did this thing for nothing b/c the only results you're interested in are what the DFL and GOP think, right?

Posted by BJHokanson | April 13, 2006 11:19 AM

You say that it is significant that an issue like gun control may cause a lot of people concern. You are correct about that. The problem is that I don't trust MPR to be objective. MPR is biased and you will see in your results what you want to see. You will report what you want to report. If you don't know how people really feel about an issue, you will be inserting your own beliefs in your reporting.

Don't even make the phony claim that you are not biased. I listen to MPR only to find out what to expect next from the Leftists in this state. I don't listen to it to get food for thought; I don't eat rancid food. I listen to it to prepare myself for the next liberal assault.

Don't even say you're not biased! A few years ago I noted with alarm that your mouthpieces on KNOW would occasionally reveal themselves for the Leftists that they are by using terms like "they," "them," and "their" when referring to Republicans, and "we," "us," and "our" when referring to Democrats.

Don't even say your not biased. Your denials are like those of the sonorous cowpoke who declares, "But I don't snore!" as he wakes to find himself tied to his bunk, which his bunk house buddies have moved out to the barn. Everyone seems to know you're biased except yourselves. Meanwhile, your devoted socialist listeners claim that you are being too nice to those on the Right.

Please, just don't deny your bias.

Posted by Doug Harrison | April 13, 2006 11:51 AM

//is that I don't trust MPR to be objective. MPR is biased and you will see in your results what you want to see. You will report what you want to report. If you don't know how people really feel about an issue, you will be inserting your own beliefs in your reporting.

Again, you don't seem to be understanding the exercise. The questions aren't how do you FEEL about an issue. The question is what issue do you want to see addressed.

As for bias, well, everyone has bias. You have a bias too. We're not robots. The question is fairness. Can both sides -- or more -- get airtime and coverage.

So when people go on the anti-MPR rant, I get it. Easy target, especially if it doesn't involve specifics. But when two sides were on Midday two weeks -- calmly -- discussing the issue like adults, I didn't hear anyone screaming "bias." Why? Because it would have disturbed their previously held notions. Better to ignore the data.

And as for only reporting what I want to report, well, if that were true, you'd be hearing a lot more stories -- a lot more stories -- about the Cleveland Indians and airplanes, fella.

//Don't even make the phony claim that you are not biased.

Well, this is the funny thing about bias. You don't wait for the data, you obviously have a bias, so you're not even interested in accumulating the data.

That's fine, that's certainly your right. But sit in a quiet spot and think sometime about a question I asked of politicians a few weeks ago, "when was the last time your mind was changed by a constituent."

If you've already determined that the data is wrong before you even receive it, that's a bias. And as the old computer software axiom goes: garbage in, garbage out.

//the Leftists that they are by using terms like "they," "them," and "their" when referring to Republicans, and "we," "us," and "our" when referring to Democrats.

Well I'm willing to bet the house that you never heard any such thing. If you think you heard that from an MPR person on the air, give me the date, the time, the person and the quote and if you're right...I'll eat a squirrel on the Capitol steps.

If you'd like to sit in a quiet studio and go through however many years of audio records you need to find it, I'll be happy to accomodate you.

What's your end of the bet?

Posted by Bob Collins | April 13, 2006 4:12 PM

//1/3 of Minnesotans consider themselves independent of the two major parties. You're not going to tell us we did this thing for nothing b/c the only results you're interested in are what the DFL and GOP think, right?

You're right, I'm not going to tellyou that . I don't have a breakdown of independents but I'll see if the folks can run a filter on 'em and I'll post 'em when I can. The guy that did this, though, just left for a vacation.

Posted by Bob Collins | April 13, 2006 4:14 PM

It was so long ago when I heard the "them" and "us" reference that I can't even remember who said it (though it was a female) or when (probably over six years ago). I didn't make it up, nor was I just hearing things. Nonetheless, I won't butt heads with you on this issue. Neither one of us wants to listen to years of tapes just so you can eat a squirrel.

You do bring up an interesting point about MPR. Do a lot of people go on anti-MPR rants? Maybe MPR itself should be a topic of discussion. If public funds are being used (and they are) then the content of MPR programs is a legitimate political issue. If all state and federal funding to public radio were terminated, and it survived as a private sector business, you would never hear from me again, no matter how biased its programming.

Getting back to the purpose of your exercise, I'd like to see our politicians discuss ways of curtailing spending. I want the Democrats called out for taxing and spending, and the Republicans for ... well ... for spending and spending. It's all about the money. I want the tax code simplified so that it doesn't take an army of accountants to wrestle through tax returns. I want all exemptions eliminated: favor no entity, target no entity. I want pork barrel political spending eliminated. No more bridges to nowhere. No more wasted efforts to save broken down theaters. No more NWA bailouts. No more stadiums for sports franchises. No more spending of the taxpayer's dollar on frivolity.

Posted by Doug Harrison | April 13, 2006 8:49 PM

//It was so long ago when I heard the "them" and "us" reference that I can't even remember who said it (though it was a female) or when (probably over six years ago). I didn't make it up, nor was I just hearing things.

You might have heard somethign incorrectly. I've been here for 14 years and I've never... not once...heard an us vs. them reference. And I vigorously defend the honor of this staff, becaue I know how important fairness is to them...in your interest.

// If all state and federal funding to public radio were terminated, and it survived as a private sector business, you would never hear from me again, no matter how biased its programming.

I don't speak for MPR. Personally, it's OK with me if the government wants to stop supporting public radio. As long as it stops dictating what public radio can and cannot do. And it's not just public radio. Radio is not a private business. I know. I use to have an ownership interest in a commercial station. The government dictates what we can and cannot say. So if you really want public radio to be a private business, then go all the way. The government might start with removing its edict that Public TV convert to digital, or go dark.

And don't give me that "the public owns the airwaves" stuff either. When did the public buy the airwaves? Who'd they buy the airwaves from? How much did it cost to buy the airwaves? The public owns the airwaves because one day the govenrment woke up and say "we own the airwaves." As long as you're cleaning up he tax code, let's clean up that mess too. The government has no interest whatsoever in anything that is broadcast anywhere. Whadaya say?

//I want all exemptions eliminated: favor no entity, target no entity.

So the kids are grown and the mortage is paid off, eh? (It's a joke)

By the way, I favor you paying 5-cents for every comment you submit in the new paradigm. (g)

Posted by Bob Collins | April 13, 2006 11:58 PM

I agree with you that the government owns too much and meddles too much. Its "ownership" of the "public" airwaves, along with regulations that prevent free competition among providers of communications services in all their forms (cable, telephone, satellite, Internet, billboards, smoke signals, mail, etc.), is onerous.

It seems to me that there is a basic misunderstanding about what "public" means when applied to radio and TV. I think the word "public" here started out being used the same way it's used for "public sidewalk" or "out in public." Standards of the community prevent people from walking down a public sidewalk spewing filth for everyone to hear or having sex in public view from within their own homes. These standards are extended to radio and TV because these signals are beamed into "public" spaces. And even if I were receiving them in a private space, I would expect the police to knock on my door and tell me to pull my curtains shut if children could see porn flicks on my big screen TV from the public sidewalk. But with our modern technologies, we have essentially moved radio and TV behind closed curtains -- parents can use the "V" chip, and "adult" entertainment can be controlled by PPV or subscription channels. It all boils down to First Amendment rights balancing with public decency. Unfortunately, it seems the porn industry has a stronger lobby protecting its product than the citizens do for protecting their right to free political speech.

And that brings me to another issue that needs to be explored when you grill politicians -- the McCain-Feingold Political Speech Suppression Act. How far we have fallen! The First Amendment was designed to protect political speech, allowing the people to be as critical of the government as they wanted to be, without fear of having their heads chopped off. Protection of pornography was merely an extension of that umbrella -- it's okay to flip the bird at your congressman, without fear of having your finger chopped off.

With McCain-Feingold, we can still be as crude as we want to be, but don't even think about discussing candidates -- even without expletives -- 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election! The only time most Americans even become aware of the candidates' names -- even if not their positions -- is in the weeks immediately preceding elections.

Listen to the comments many people make upon exiting the polling place. You will hear things like:

"Wow! Did you see all those judges?"

"Yeah! Who knew there'd be so many?!"

"I didn't know who to vote for, so I just
marked all the names I could pronounce!"

"Ha, ha! I picked all the names I couldn't
pronounce!"

Now the government wants to stop us from communicating with our fellow constituents during the only time they might be paying attention? They don't seem to want an informed electorate. What rot!

I noticed with dismay that the House just passed H.R. 513 (a bill to clamp down on 527 organizations, which is a prelude to stomping on Internet blogging and non traditional news media under McCain-Feingold). It was a partisan vote, with only 18 liberty-leaning Republicans (like Jeff Flake) voting against the House measure.

I'd like to see McCain-Feingold overturned completely. I believe it is unConstitutional law, which makes it no law at all, and if I had a political blog, I would not be deterred from discussing all candidates right through elections and beyond.

It would be nice if the people understood their rights and duties as jury members before my trial for campaigning during campaign season. In particular, I'd like them to understand "jury nullification." If you really want to inform the public on important matters, jury nullification is one of the most important.

As for the 5-cent surcharge on my posts, the government is trying to do just that. It is eyeing schemes for collecting fees and taxes on all Internet communications, and we had better be fighting that tooth and nail as well. It is no wonder the U.N. wants to take over the Internet. It would provide a tax base for the One World Government. It worked for funding the Spanish-American War, when we added special taxes to telephone services. The U.N. sees the Internet as no less a pot of gold.

Posted by Doug Harrison | April 14, 2006 10:35 AM

Well, of course, public TV and radio started when the average person had maybe one or two alternatives. Now there are hundreds. The same thing you described as reasons for regulation of an electronic medium, are in play for the printed word too. But the 1st amendment extends to print, it doesn't extend to broadcast.

Your description of the judges, but you left out one exchange.

"Who did you vote for?"

"I didn't really know anybody. So I voted for the ones named Anderson."

The public has quite often demonstrated its disregard for educating itself even though that information is available with -- nowadays -- an insignificant amount of effort.

Your points about McCain-Feingold are well taken, but I think we're often too quick to blame our electoral laziness on everyone other than ourselves.

Voters aren't doing their job. Government isn't doing its job. Candidates aren't doing their job.

Why is anyone surprised that the political world is in such sad shape?

Posted by Bob Collins | April 14, 2006 11:32 AM

Ah, yes. The "Anderson" syndrome. In Minnesota, Scandinavians have a good chance of getting elected on name familiarity alone. In the Southwest, Spanish surnames will ride more easily to victory for the same reason.

I'd say that our sorry state of politics can be blamed primarily on the voters. There are lots of folks trying to gain recognition for their candidates and their issues, but most people just don't want to get involved in the process. I've worked on the campaigns of half a dozen candidates, and it is very hard work.

Most people identify with a party because they expect the party to do all the work, and to tell them how to vote. Unfortunately, they are too lazy even to discover that their party had departed from its core beliefs long ago. Once a Democrat or Republican, always a Democrat or Republican. In canvassing for candidates, I've talked with a lot of people who agreed with everything a candidate stood for, and some folks even became excited by the candidate's proposals. I never start out saying what party my candidate belongs to, but eventually, the excited voter gets around to asking. When I tell them, they suddenly freeze and blurt out, "Oh! Sorry, that's not my party." They are going to vote for a person who stands for the opposite of everything they just got excited about. What a shame.

After campaigning for decades against "spendaholic" Democrats, Republicans finally gain control of the Oval Office and both chambers of the legislature, all on promises of reducing the size and power of the government. The victory must have hit them so hard that it gave them a collective concussion, resulting in collective amnesia. They've forgotten why they were sent to Washington. Republicrats or Demoblicans, it matters not what you call them, they're all the same. I used to get rankled when people would say, "There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans." Now I understand.

I think our political schizophrenia stems from our basic inability to identify ourselves outside of a political party. We rely on the out-dated and ineffectual linear political spectrum. You know, the one that has Democrats on the left end of a continuum and Republicans on the right end. The two ends are considered "extreme," with Democrats calling the right-wing extremists "Nazis" and the Republicans calling the left-wing extremists "socialists." A large number of people, wishing to avoid being tagged "extremists," call themselves "moderates." They claim the great nebulous middle, which is odd, because then you have both Democrats and Republicans claiming the same point on line, even though they hold opposing views on the issues. Many people know they're not like that other guy, but yet, there is no place along the linear spectrum to call home. We need a different way of looking at ourselves and our beliefs.

Fortunately, we have a better way. It begins with an honest look at one's beliefs -- true beliefs, not political affiliations. It is quick and easy, and it provides for a political spectrum that is two-dimensional instead of linear. The two dimensions are derived from two axes, which are measures of the amount of personal and economic liberty allowed by different political philosophies. The old extremes of the left wing and right wing end up in opposite corners of a square, while the former "middle of the road" is opened up to provide the other set of opposite corners, defined by authoritarian and libertarian ideologies. The new matrix allows for political identities that go far beyond the false dichotomy of Democrats and Republicans.

The matrix, whether you choose the Nolan Chart or the RLC's LiberGraph, gives people a political identity that transcends party boundaries. I would really like MPR to do a segment on the World's Smallest Political Quiz. It would help people to open their eyes to meaningful political identities. Perhaps some of those who are politically disenfranchised will be invigorated by the knowledge that they don't have to conform to a political identity defined by the two major parties. People that had found no place for themselves in politics will discover that they are not excluded after all. You can find the ten question WSPQ at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html along with the Nolan Chart, and you can find improved scaling with the LiberGraph at http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/libergraph.htm

Please review those websites to discover just how useless the old left-right political spectrum really is. Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, Green, Socialist, or whatever, the WSPQ should help you to better determine your political locus as compared with all the others. You will see people finally saying, "Here I am! And I'm not alone." Maybe some of that political apathy will melt away.

Posted by Doug Harrison | April 14, 2006 1:47 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories