Several years ago, momentum was building for mass votes on local, state and national issues via the Internet and e-mail.

Saturday, May 19, 2001

Several years ago, momentum was building for mass votes on local, state and national issues via the Internet and e-mail. The idea soon lost steam because of the newness of the technology, security factors and a fear over the perception most of the public doesn’t give a rip about most government issues.

While it is true the public often demonstrates a malaise when it comes to government issues, the time perhaps has come to again examine the viability of mass votes and thus get rid of our elected officials.

Think about it for a second. We could save billions of dollars on campaign costs, save billions of dollars on elected officials’ salaries and end up with a truly representative government.

Will it happen? Probably not. But it’s worth examining. Of course, this issue is much more complicated than space allows.

Let’s face it: We elect government officials supposedly to carry out our will and to be our eyes and ears so in some form we do not have to spend the time keeping up on every issue.

How often government officials perform the roles of keeping the general public updated on important issues and then carry out the will of the people is open for debate. Furthermore the elected officials’ role as a messenger to the public is being eroded every day as technology brings news to the masses faster every day.

Then there is the question of carrying out the will of the people. The role of partisan politics in government has largely wiped out elected officials’ ability to vote for their constituency. Instead, most votes are cast as a party bloc. Party bloc voting is not carrying out the will of the people.

At the local level – city, county and school board – politics is less apparent. This lack of politics allows locally elected officials more opportunity to carry out the will of the people and to actually make meaningful contributions to the communities they represent.

Things begin to change at the state level where, according to one local legislator, "It’s all about politics at the Minnesota State Capitol." The presence of politics and its ramifications have been thoroughly demonstrated during the current legislative session.

The ineffectiveness of our elected state officials has never been more apparent than during this session, leading to the question of why do we elect representatives if they can’t get anything done.

The inability of the Legislature to enact a budget, to tackle tax reform and to pass other meaningful legislation is embarrassing. The Legislature’s inability to accomplish its job leads to speculation of could the masses really do much worse.

Would it be any worse to have an elected governor decide the platform and then post his or her legislative agenda on Web sites or e-mail to people for them to vote?

Let’s see: Should soda pop be allowed in the schools, yes or no? Are you in favor of a $250 million tax cut or a $350 million tax cut? What percentage of the state’s budget should go to education?

One has to believe the presence of elected officials and politics only complicates matters, creates more laws and unnecessary laws and makes for ineffective government.

And, of course, at the national level we see a magnification of all that ails government at the state level.

So I say if elected officials are unable to perform their function – i.e., the Minnesota State Legislature – then let the people vote on the issues. While it may seem like a far-fetched idea, do we really have anything to lose when our elected officials always seem to end up in political gridlock?

Neal Ronquist’s column appears Sundays. Call him at 434-2201 or e-mail him at neal.ronquist@austindailyherald.com.