Opinion: Kinder and gentler politics are good. Effective policy is better.

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The horrific assassination of Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the attacks on state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, once again brought to the forefront the deep divisions and intense anger that increasingly are defining America’s politics. Good intentions are a necessary first step in changing the culture, but if that’s all that comes of the tragic attacks, we will have dishonored the memory of Rep. Hortman and all the victims of political violence.

The root problem is our political system itself. We have allowed the two parties to create a duopoly, one that feels entitled to its voters and divides the country into blue and red. In more and more contests, the winner is known before the first vote is cast. Last year the average margin of victory in all U.S. House races, excluding the roughly 20 seats around the country that had no competition, was more than 27%. In Minnesota, the Second Congressional District was predicted to be one of the few competitive races in the country. Angie Craig ended up winning by 13%, a landslide.

This noncompetitive environment is the catalyst for our political anger. When few office holders are seriously challenged, they dig in their heels on the most partisan policies, ignore new and better ideas and dismiss opponents with anger and name-calling.

At a time when our country and state desperately need better policies for the future, most policymakers are invested in ideas of the past because they appeal to their narrow constituencies. Rather than run campaigns that engage voters in understanding the challenges and opportunities we face, they attack opponents with distortions and outright lies. We all are left more stupid when billions of advertising dollars are spent on nonsense or worse.

Changing this political environment won’t happen unless we combine the personal commitments to tone down anger with substantive system reforms.

Some changes can be made easily. The two political parties can agree to stop injecting party labels into offices where they aren’t needed and activities where they are disruptive. On the latter point, former Democratic state legislator Todd Otis proposed that legislators be seated randomly in the Senate and House chambers instead of by party. Lawmakers might be better able to find common ground if they don’t have to reach across an aisle but can discuss an issue with a seatmate as debates are occurring.

The media also has a role to play in toning down narrow party politics. Not every article on every court decision needs to identify the presiding judge as an appointee of this president or that one. Many court decisions and public policy proposals speak for themselves.

The two major parties on their own could lead in making elections more inclusive and less divisive. Democrats and Republicans rely on painfully long and sparsely attended caucuses and local conventions to select delegates to state conventions. The result is conventions composed of the most loyal and often the most partisan members of their respective parties.

Suppose the emphasis of party conventions was less about partisanship and more about qualifications. Let party activists evaluate the candidates on the criteria of what they have done and what they promise to do. Instead of a single endorsed candidate being sent to the primaries, offer endorsements to all candidates who are deemed qualified by 50% or more of the delegates.

This party reform, if paired with a legislative change to create open primaries, could make a huge difference in more substantive and less angry campaigns. Today’s primaries often attract challengers from the extremes of the respective parties to compete with incumbents or more mainstream candidates.

With the small turnouts of primaries, extremism is rewarded and moderation decried.

In an open primary, all candidates — Democrats, Republicans and qualifying independents or third parties — run in a single contest. The top four, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election. Candidates have the incentive to appeal to a broad range of voters and voters have more reason to find time to cast primary ballots.

A more challenging legislative reform, but one that serves the interest of both parties targets campaign finance. No, Minnesota can’t overturn the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling that opened the door to massive and often secret political spending, but it can limit outside influence in local and state races.

Maine offers a model that has more than two decades of experience, most of it positive. Before they are eligible for public funds, candidates must first demonstrate a broad base of support by gaining financial contributions from a qualifying number of donors. These significant funds are available to major-party candidates and those running as independents. The Maine formula, for example, would translate to about $2.9 million (primary and general elections combined) for every Minnesota gubernatorial candidate. Not only would public funding entice more diverse candidates, it would help reduce the impact of the special interests that often drive the most strident campaign rhetoric.

Then there are reforms that will require heavy political lifting and a willingness for everyone to give up some ideological ground. A starting point is combining proposals that long have been advocated by many on the left and the right: ranked-choice voting and voter ID.

Ranked-choice voting has proven popular with voters in the Minnesota communities where it is allowed and in the many cities and states nationally where it is practiced. It simply allows people to choose their preferred candidate and indicate second and third choices. It ultimately requires a majority of voters to choose a winning candidate with either their first- or second-choice votes, rather than a plurality.

Voter ID, supporters say, builds trust in the integrity of elections, creating one more level of assurance that only those eligible are casting ballots. Democrats often oppose the measure, saying it suppresses the votes of low-income citizens, the elderly and others who may not have state-issued IDs. Yet, Wisconsin should offer comfort to Democrats. Earlier this year, as Democrats were celebrating the landslide win of the liberal candidate to the Supreme Court, those same voters gave an even larger endorsement of the proposal to enshrine the state’s voter ID law in the state constitution. Wisconsin’s decadelong experience with voter ID has seen broad support for the law, high turnout and little evidence of people being denied the right to vote.

A first-step collaboration might be this: Republicans acknowledge their long-held core principle of support for local government and join Democrats in allowing any community throughout Minnesota to choose for themselves whether they want to conduct local elections via ranked-choice voting. What could be more Minnesotan (and more Republican) than letting the grassroots be the testing ground for possible state policy?

In return, Democrats accept voter ID with the assurance that easily available identification cards will be available for all voters. The DFL incentive to accept a state-designed voter ID is that it could preempt even more restrictive laws, including President Donald Trump’s proposal to require proof of citizenship.

Finally — and this might be the most difficult barrier for Democrats and Republicans to hurdle — is making the ballot more accessible to independent and third-party candidates. In 2026, a person hoping to run as an independent or third-party candidate for governor of Minnesota is required to obtain the signatures of at least 2,000 eligible voters between May 19 and June 2, a 15-day period that includes the long Memorial Day weekend. It is a tall task, one designed mostly to keep candidates from competing with the Democratic and Republican parties.

The goal should be to encourage credible and serious candidates. That could be accomplished by allowing candidates to qualify with a significant filing fee — say, $1,000 — collected through at least 50 contributions from Minnesota-eligible voters plus the signatures of 1,000 eligible voters. Extend the period for both criteria, say March 1 to the end of the filing period, June 2.

We don’t pretend these changes are easy. Neither should we pretend that the good intentions that always follow a tragedy will make a difference. The fact is, in their candid moments, most politicians agree that the current system is broken. Fixing it will take leadership.

Tom Horner, a longtime public affairs executive, served as chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger from 1978 to 1985 and was the Independence Party candidate for Minnesota governor in 2010. Dario Anselmo represented Edina as a Republican state representative from 2017 to 19, was an independent candidate for Hennepin County Board in 2020 and is a gun violence family survivor.