Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

Paul Landskroener

Minneapolis, MN
Commenter for
6 years 26 weeks

Recent Comments

Posted on 09/24/14 at 08:39 am in response to Dayton campaign calls Johnson's MNsure charges a 'smear'

To get in a little late: The Obama administration missed a huge opportunity when negotiating the ACA in not agreeing to reasonable medical malpractice tort reform as part of the deal. First, it might have given political cover to the few remaining moderate Republicans to support the bill, undermining the extremists' largely successful attempt to make it a partisian issue. Second, depending on the kind of reform adopted, could result in better (i.e., fairer, more consistent) compensation for...

Posted on 08/14/14 at 01:24 pm in response to Minnesota’s primary problem: It’s time for a change (or two)

To Mr Reynolds: Minnesota already has "open primaries." Any voter can vote in the primary of any party listed on the ballot. You don't have to tell anyone which party's primary you voted in. (You have to vote in only one of the party-columns, of course -- you can't vote for DFL and GOP candidates at the same time.)

If by "open primary" you mean letting all voters vote the the candidates of all parties, then you might as well abolish the primary election altogether and institute Ranked...

Posted on 08/14/14 at 07:44 am in response to Johnson wins GOP nomination for governor

I wonder how many Republicans will take another look at ranked choice voting (fka instant runoff voting) after this disturbing result. I sure wouldn't feel terribly confident if I knew that 70% of the voters who I need to form my electoral base voted for somebody else. (My guess is that Johnson would have been nearly every Republican's second choice and would have been nominated in a RCV election anyway and is by far their strongest candidate, but it wouldn't have taken a lot for one of the...

Posted on 07/23/14 at 11:29 am in response to Mike McFadden open to raising the age for Medicare benefits

Ask him: If "everything is on the table", are you willing to discuss increasing the employer and employee contribution (aka tax) to Social Security? How about decreasing benefits? Or means testing them? Are you wlling to discuss raising the income cap on contributions from $114,000 to, say, $250,000? How about abolishing Social Security altogether? What a nothingburger his guy is.

Rather than setting an arbitrary retirement age (which would require a constitutional amendment), amend the constitution to provide for long -- but not lifetime -- appointments. One plan I've read is to appoint justices for 20 year terms, and to implement it so that two terms expire during each presidential term. (This rule could apply to district and circuit court judges, too.) This would provide for continuity but also for change; would continue to insulate justices from the political...

Posted on 12/19/13 at 09:51 am in response to Why DFL is (somewhat secretly) divided over ranked-choice voting

Thank you for this story; it has gone largely untold. Ranked Choice Voting is much more than a way to cast and count ballots; it requires an entirely new way of thinking about campaigning and political parties. It will take a few election cycles for us to figure out how to operate in this new world, but I believe it's well worth the uncertainty. Despite the circus of having 35 candidates, and only about five or six credible ones, the expected benefits of a positive campaign and increased...

Posted on 12/09/13 at 03:52 pm in response to Jason Lewis: Majority rule is undemocratic

The Senate's covenant that provided the minority the opportunity to delay a hasty vote also has an unwritten component, namely that the minority must not use that power irresponsibly or capriciously, and to reserve it only for the most critical, most important issues. The Republican minority in the Senate violated this rule over and over and over again. They used it to delay votes on judicial confirmations, for example, even though there was no opposition to the underlying appointment....

What are the current proposals for revising the low filing threshhold for running for mayor?

My son suggested that there be a substantial but not prohibitive filing fee -- say $500 or $1000 -- and that each dollar of the fee can be "paid" for by a valid signature on a petition. So an underfunded candidate who can mobilize 500 or 1000 signatures can run, but the frivolous vanity candidate would have to make a more significant investment to feed his or her ego.

God may move the heart of a king, but apparently not Warren Limmer. Sigh.

Posted on 04/23/13 at 08:37 am in response to Why it’s increasingly likely Michele Bachmann will retire

You write: "Bachmann spent more than any other House candidate in the country and barely survived." On what?, I wonder.