Readers Write: Road signs, the two-party system, Medicaid, bad taste

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

•••

I am surprised by the fuss being made over the (somewhat) humorous information and safety signs being tested by the Minnesota Department of Transportation when the proliferation of billboards arrayed along the highways of every town of any size in Minnesota are far more distracting and offensive (“Caution appropriate on funny road signs,” editorial, Jan. 27). Minnesota billboards have become gargantuan. Billboards are now stacked one on top of another — surely soon we’ll see triple-decker, electronic billboards scroll through brightly lit advertisements, flashing and vying for driver’s attention. It takes concerned effort to keep one’s eyes on the road. Wouldn’t it be an interesting MnDOT study to determine how many accidents occur from drivers distracted by billboards?

I do my best to ignore the onslaught, preferring to keep myself “distracted” by what’s beyond the signs — beautiful rolling hills and woodlands, or what is left amid inexorable urban sprawl. As a former resident, current property owner and frequent traveler through the Land of 10,000 Billboards, I am dismayed by this blight on charming towns and urban skylines, angry that it’s been allowed to happen. But what can be done? Two words: sign ordinance. If we can do it in Montana, an enlightened Minnesota can do it even better. A dynamic city council or a thoughtful county commission could take control with determined effort, enacting lawful billboard criteria: size, placement and, in particular, where signs are disallowed. A good law makes a big difference; a town you’d like to embrace, or one to overlook.

Leo Keane, Whitefish, Mont.

TWO-PARTY SYSTEM

Emphasis on ‘system’

In his eloquent and well-thought-out commentary “Two-party dogma serves itself, fails America” (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 30), Tom Horner — a former Independence Party candidate for governor in Minnesota — correctly points out that the two main parties limit third parties from having a chance to win an election. I agree. However, I believe he does not address the systemic barrier to third-party influence: the election structure, particularly the Electoral College.

As it stands, a party whose candidates get less of the vote, even at 49%, gets no electors in almost all states. I believe that the parliamentary system in Europe and Canada’s is much more effective: If you get 49% of the vote, you get 49% of the seats in Parliament. This leaves it open for additional parties to have some influence — influence that would hopefully have a moderating effect on the main parties.

As the saying goes, this will happen when pigs — or congressional representatives — fly.

Nic Baker, Roseville

•••

Horner’s opinion about America’s two feckless parties and the mayhem they are wreaking on the country is right on. But why? In a perfect world we wouldn’t have any political parties, just as the founding fathers intended (hoped?). Of course, we immediately had political parties because, well, we had a lot of politicians. That said, our unique two-party system has served us pretty well — until the last several years. What happened? As one smart person opined, maybe we have too much democracy! The parties have let the caucuses and primaries have too much power, and this is what we’ve ended up with. It seems that we lost those smoky back rooms where practical election decisions were made on who should run.

The founding fathers were very clear that they did not want a government that was either too powerful or too effective. They were also clear that they did not want the great unwashed — that’s you and me — picking the president. Thus, the original Electoral College was made up (supposedly) by the elite, the best and brightest men (and men only). You know, guys like the founding fathers.

I guess my point is that although the Electoral College doesn’t work, the parties did come up with something that was sort of like it — the old smoky back rooms made up of old pols who would decide who was most electable, not the darlings selected by the rabble.

It is very hard to imagine the old pols would ever select two such sad presidential candidates as we have today (and several others in recent years) to represent their parties.

But here we are, so choose as best you can.

D. Roger Pederson, Minneapolis

•••

Horner makes a good case about the need for more than a two-party political system in order to maintain a healthy democracy. The European model of multi-coalitions actually allows for a more effective form of governance and hence keeps one party from hijacking progressive legislation. Where I disagree with Horner is his calling both of 2024’s likely candidates deeply flawed. How in the stroke of one sentence can you compare the moral character of one candidate who has been found liable for sexually abusing women, admires dictators and promises to punish everyone who disagrees with him to a president who respects the Constitution and all Americans, and is leading a surging economy that is inclusive and beneficial to all?

Mike Menzel, Edina

THE RANGE OF OPINIONS

This one disqualified itself

I was disappointed and frankly a bit shocked that the Star Tribune would publish the nasty screed by Joe Battenfeld of the Boston Herald regarding potential upcoming presidential debates (”Let the general election debate (over debates) begin,” Opinion Exchange, Jan. 30). Clearly, his support for debates has nothing to do with informing voters since he seems perfectly fine with Donald Trump refusing to debate his Republican rivals. But the ugly nature of his partisan viewpoint is especially apparent in two comments. First, he dismisses the legal matters facing Donald Trump as simply Democrats trying to “muck up” the former president when in fact, regardless of the motivations of those bringing charges, actions against Trump to date have come from judges and juries and prosecutors. Second, he suggests that President Joe Biden is so incompetent that he would walk off without answering reporters’ questions “if he can find his way off the stage.”

I understand that the purpose of opinion pages is to share a wide array of viewpoints and I always expect to read ones with which I disagree. But the tone of this one was so sleazy and the substance so lacking in anything of value to the electorate and our democracy that it did not deserve the space it was given.

Cyndy Crist, St. Paul

•••

“Let the general election debate (over debates) begin” got right to the core of the problem. With two such dominant parties, little light and few new ideas or compromise gets in. As it did back in 1992 when Ross Perot got 18.9% of the vote as a third-party candidate. Admit it. We are stuck this year, not only with two old men, one of whom faces major legal charges including regarding insurrection, but with a House and Senate that can’t work for the common good but instead bicker and block necessary action for us, the people. Good grief, already.

Jim Lein, Minneapolis

MEDICAID

Pay now to pay less

We must heed Todd Archbold’s warning about Medicaid funding (“Mental health, and caregivers, are in crisis,” Opinion Exchange, Jan. 30). Medicaid was created to provide care for the uninsured. But, as he points out, inadequate reimbursement to providers forces them to abandon this population. We cannot afford to allow erosion of care to those with addiction or mental health or life-threatening disease. It is much less expensive to provide preventive or ongoing care than to deal with the consequences of neglect.

The intent to care is truly Minnesotan, but now we must put our money where our mouth is.

Mary C. Kemen, Chanhassen