Practice isn't making perfect in Minnesota state government. For 21 years, voters have elected a mix of DFLers, Republicans and Independence Party candidates to positions of power.

Instead of learning through those years to share that trust to good effect, elected officials have exhibited increasing difficulty reconciling their differences. This year's shutdown -- the second in six years -- bent the trend line off the charts.

The 20-day shutdown ended Wednesday, but Minnesotans will be assessing the damage for a long time. As they do, they should ponder how best to prevent shutdowns from becoming the norm when the parties share power in St. Paul. This longest of shutdowns also ought to be Minnesota's last.

"Never again," state Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, urged Thursday, as he and four other GOP legislators unveiled measures to eliminate the possibility of shuttering government offices when funding bills aren't enacted on time. The idea: to authorize continued spending at the previous biennium's level if a new biennium starts without a budget signed into law.

That idea has been drafted in amendment, bill and constitutional amendment form. Clearly, GOP legislators are serious about getting it in place before the next budget-setting exercise in 2013.

It doesn't take much imagination to understand the idea's appeal to the GOP. Most Republicans aim to rein in government spending. A continuing appropriation rule would greatly assist them in achieving that goal.

When state government is divided and that rule is in place, all the party that opposes higher spending needs to do to get its way is refuse to agree to a new budget. An impasse would be sufficient to hold spending flat from one biennium to the next. If voters keep electing divided government, spending could be clamped down indefinitely -- just as effectively as if the antispending party had won full control of the statehouse.

The partisan converse is also possible. A continuing appropriation rule could also benefit the party that seeks to block spending cuts when state revenues fall, as they did during 2009. Given current political thinking, that party would likely be the DFL.

Voters seem to be seeking a blend of both parties' ideas when they elect divided government. If that's so, a continuing-appropriation law or constitutional requirement would thwart the will of the voters.

This idea could appear on 2012 ballots as the "no more shutdown" amendment. More accurately, it would be a "flat spending" amendment, as long as divided government persists. Instead of pushing the two parties to bridge their differences, it would invite one of them to dig in their heels.

We think a better way to avert shutdowns would be to heighten the political and practical consequences of a budget impasse, not to diminish them.

Bad as the shutdown of 2011 was, it could have been much worse. Two judges named Kathleen -- Ramsey County Chief Judge Gearin and Special Master (and former Minnesota Chief Justice) Blatz -- gave the Constitution a broad-minded, pragmatic reading that protected life and safety and allowed schools and colleges to operate. They allowed a sizable share of state money to flow without appropriation, keeping a bad situation from becoming intolerable. But they also eased pressure on lawmakers to compromise.

The Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments soon in a case that claims that the two jurists went too far, and that more services ought to have ceased.

The end of the shutdown gives the high court an excuse to punt on the constitutional question the case raises. We hope it does not. Greater certainty about what the courts will and won't do about future budget stalemates would help those at the Capitol -- and those who seek to influence them -- better anticipate the cost of delayed decisionmaking.

One other proposal in recent days would serve that end. DFLers Mindy Greiling and John Marty, both of Roseville, introduced bills during the special session that would clarify and toughen the open-meeting requirements for the Legislature and governor. Their strong measure (see above) would bring much-needed transparency and instant accountability to what has become a secretive budget-setting end game.

It bears reminding Minnesotans who criticized the shutdown and the politicians who caused it that representative government is a reflection of the people. People who urge their representatives not to compromise need to realize that, when government is divided, they are asking for a shutdown. No reasonable Minnesotan should ask for that outcome again.