SCSU SURVEY-REPORTS FOR THE FALL, 1999 ANNUAL STATEWIDE SURVEY

Last revised 2/1/2000

Note: In the political section the feeling thermometer charts from past years need to be reformatted. Some graphs need to be made for the unicameral findings. Two sections of the fall survey have a bit of analysis still remaining. These are the sports section and the women candidate questions.

Readers who want more information such as demographic breakdowns should contact one of the survey directors. We will do SOME of this at no cost

Prepared

by

Dr. Stephen Frank

Dr. Steven Wagner

Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes

Principal Investigators

SCSU Survey

Social Science Research Institute

College of Social Sciences

St. Cloud State University

St. Cloud, Minnesota

December 1999

I. METHODOLOGY

II. POLITCAL SECTION

III. SPORTS SECTION

IV. WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE SECTION

V. DEMOGRAPHICS

VI. QUESTIONNAIRE

==================================================

I. METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

The SCSU Survey is an ongoing survey research arm of the Social Science Research Institute, College of Social Sciences, St. Cloud State University. Dr. Stephen Frank began the Survey in 1980 conducting several omnibus surveys a year of central Minnesota adults in conjunction with his Political Science classes. The omnibus surveys are done once a year but now have primarily a statewide focus. Drs. Steven Wagner and Michelle Kukoleca Hammes serve as co-directors with Dr. Frank. During November 4 - 18, 1999 the SCSU Survey conducted its annual general purpose omnibus survey of Minnesota adults. The following is a description of the methodology used to conduct the survey. 

METHODOLOGY

Directors of the survey are Dr. Stephen Frank, SCSU Professor of Political Science, Dr. Steven Wagner, SCSU Associate Professor of Public Administration and Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes, SCSU Assistant Professor of Political Science. Mr. Justin Wedeking and Ms. Kim Litwinczak serve as senior supervising student directors. Mr. Chad Schoep, Ms. Rachael Olson, Mr. James Mounts, Ms. Katie Sawyer, Ms. Holly Dazinger and Chris Doere serve as student survey directors. Mr. Jason Rice, a former supervising student director, provided consultation assistance. Mr. Joe LeDuc provides technical support.

About 50 political science students conducted the actual interviews. All callers were screened and received about five hours of training. All calls were make from the SCSU Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing Survey Research Laboratory. The survey software is develped by Sawtooth Software. The callers were monitored by Mr. Justin Wedeking, Ms. Kim Litwinczak, Mr. Chad Schoep, Ms. Rachael Olson, Mr. James Mounts, Ms. Katie Sawyer, Ms. Holly Dazinger and Drs. Frank, Wagner and Kukoleca Hammes.. The survey was administered on Sundays through Saturdays (not Friday) between November 4 - 18, 1999.

Several steps were taken to ensure that the telephone sample of state adults 18 years of age or older is representative of the state’s population. Survey Sampling, Fairfield, Connecticut, prepared the random digit sample of telephone numbers. Random digit dialing makes available changed, new and unlisted numbers. Drawing numbers from a telephone book may skip as many as 20% of Minnesota households. Within each household the particular respondent was determined in a statistically unbiased fashion. This means that the selection process alternated between men and women and older and younger respondents. Few substitutions were allowed. In order to reach hard-to-get respondents, each number was called up to ten times over different days and times and appointments made as necessary to interview the designated respondent at her/his convenience. Most calls were made after 4:00 pm weekdays and during the day on Saturdays and Sundays.

The sample consists of 602 completed interviews. In samples of 602 interviews the sample error due to sampling and other random effects is approximately plus or minus 3.9% at the 95% level of confidence. This means that if one were to have drawn 20 samples of the state and administered the same instrument it would be expected that the overall findings would be greater or lesser than 3.9% only one time in 20.

However, in all sample surveys there are other possible sources of error for which precise estimates cannot be calculated. These include interviewer error, respondent misinterpretation, and analysis errors. When analysis is made of subsamples such as respondents who are Republican or breakdowns by variables such as gender the sample error may be larger.

The demographics of the sample match census and other known characteristics of the state population very well and weighting is not necessary. Usually surveys oversample females but not in this survey which 51% female and 49% male which is about the state average. Other demographics such income, break down by county, employment status, religion, political party affiliation and political ideology are an almost exact match to the whole population.

The cooperation rate of the survey is 65%. This is several percentage points above the average for professional marketing firms. Cooperation rate means that once an eligible household was reached almost two-thirds of the respondents agreed to participate in the survey. Cooperation rate is calculated by adding the number of completed calls to the number of refusals, and dividing the number of completed calls by the sum of completed and refusal calls. When the SCSU Survey does specialized contract surveys a smaller, more skilled group of student interviewers are used and the completion rate ranges from 68% to 80%. Table one shows the disposition of all calls made during the course of the survey.

The total survey consists of 64 variables. Additional material on the survey’s methodology and findings are available by contacting Dr. Stephen Frank, Dr. Steven Wagner or Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes at St. Cloud State University.

II. POLITCAL SECTION

POLITICAL LEADER FEELING THERMOMETER

EVALUATION OF GOVERNOR VENTURA

SOME OVERALL FINDINGS

Minnesotans continue to be very upbeat about the direction of the state. Almost 7 in 10 continue to think the state is headed in the right direction. Only 2 of 10 think the state is headed in the wrong direction.

When asked to name the single most important problem facing the state no single problem emerges. Education (19%) and taxes (17%) are the most named problems. Concern with crime, drugs and violence continue to decline (9%).

No single party is seen as the clear leader in dealing with problems; the Reform Party may be gaining legitimacy.

Using the Univ. of Michigan "feeling thermometer" Minnesotans feel very warm toward Terry Ventura and possibly Tim Penny although the latter still lacks some name recognition. Among present office holders listed, Governor Ventura evokes the warmest feelings while Bill Clinton and Rod Grams slide even more into the cool of a Minnesota chill. Most of the possible challengers to Senators Grams are not well known.

About four of ten Minnesotans (41%) would vote for Jesse Ventura again as Governor while about the same would not vote for him (46%). About three of four who voted for Jesse in 1998 would vote for him again.

About half (54%) of Minnesotans have a positive view (excellent or pretty good) of Governor Ventura's performance as Governor while almost half have a negative view (45% fair or poor).

About one in four (27%) think Governor Ventura is a breath of fresh air while about the same (22%) think he is an embarrassment to the state.

About half think MN. media treats the Governor fairly (52%) while about four in 10 (39%) think the media treats him too harshly. However, over half (55%) of MN. adults do not believe the rare interviews he gives to MN. reporters limits the information the public obtains about him governing, while about a third believe it does limit the information received.

Minnesotans have mixed views as to whether or not the Governor is interested in promoting himself, the interests of MN. or both when he appears on national media. About one third thinks he is promoting himself, about one in 10 think he is promoting MN. while about half think he is doing both.

==================================================

FEELING THERMOMETER- (enclosed charts) The feeling thermometer is used in a variety of academic and political surveys and is a useful measure of political attitudes or a predisposition to respond favorably or negatively. It is very strongly related to voter choice. Often people may lack knowledge of a candidate’s party, ideology, and issue positions but do have a general sense if they like the person or not and this is a key factory in voting behavior. Breakdowns are available for age, general work status, sex, region, party, ideology, religion, geographic region and combined household income. The best indicator of respondent’s rating is their political party affiliation.

Some researchers believe a respondent is not perceived warmly until their ratings are into the 70’s. No one has ever been in this range in the SCSU Survey since the survey began using this measure in the 1988 statewide survey. Steve Frank believes there may be a regional explanation for this. After all, any group of citizens who regard a 30 degree Fahrenheit temperature as warm probably believe when they give a 50 this is an expression of warmth.

Introductory questions

 Let us begin by asking, do you think things in the state of Minnesota are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten off on the wrong track?

Introduction: Table 1
general direction of state
	Frequency	Percentage
Right Direction	411	69
Neutral-Vol.	55	9
Wrong Direction	114	19
Don’t Know	20	3
Total	600	100

What do you think is the single most important problem facing the State of Minnesota today?

introduction: Table 2
most important Problem facing the state
	Frequency	Percentage
Abortion	7	1
Agricultural-General	12	2
Agricultural-Problems of Farmers	19	3
Budget/Surplus	3	0
Candidate Characteristics	1	0
Crime/Gangs/Violence	55	9
Drugs	7	1
Economic Issues-Jobs, Wages	17	3
Education	110	19
Environmental Issues	11	2
Family Issues	12	2
Gambling	1	0
Issues Related to Indians	1	0
Moral Issues (values)	10	2
Religious Issues	0	0
Politics/Politicians	13	2
Poverty/Poor	13	2
Senior Issues	4	1
Sports Issues	7	1
Taxes	100	17
Welfare	22	4
Jesse Ventura	23	4
Other	81	14
No Problem Facing the State	9	2
Don’t Know	54	9
Total	592	100

Which political party, if any, do you think can do a better job of handling the problem you have just mentioned-the Republican Party, the Democratic Party or Reform Party?

This question was asked only of those who gave a response to the previous question.

Introduction Table 3
best party to respond to problems
	Frequency	Percentage
Republican	106	21
Democratic	128	25
Reform	83	16
Other-Volunteered	16	3
Same-Volunteered	13	2
Neither	83	16
Don’t Know	87	17
Total	516	100

FEELING THERMOMETER AND POLITICAL LEADERS

Please think of a thermometer that has a range of 0 to 100 degrees. I'd like you to rate your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news. Ratings on the thermometer between 50 and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward the person. Ratings between 0 and 50 mean that you do not feel too favorable toward the person. If we come to a person whose name you don't recognize, you don't need to rate that person. Just tell me and we will move on to the next one. If you do recognize the name, but do not feel particularly warm or cold toward the person, you would rate the person at the 50-degree mark.

THERMOMETER Table 1
POLITICAL LEADER FEELING THERMOMETER
	Mean Temperature	Num./Pct. Responding	Number Can’t Judge	Percentage Can’t Judge
Bill Clinton	45	596/99	6	1
Rod Grams	46	456/76	146	24
Paul Wellstone	50	545/91	57	9
Terry Ventura	60	488/81	114	19
Al Gore	47	568/94	34	6
Jesse Ventura	54	591/98	11	2
Norm Coleman	52	513/85	89	15
	Mean Temperature	Num./Pct. Responding	Number Can’t Judge	Percentage Can’t Judge
Hillary Clinton	48	581/97	21	3
Tim Penny	60	280/47	322	53
Michael Ciresi	47	118/20	484	80
Steven Miles	52	102/17	500	83
David Lillehaug	52	175/29	427	71
James Gibson	49	90/15	512	85
Steve Kelley	53	112/19	490	81

QUESTIONS ABOUT GOVERNOR VENTURA

In last year's gubernatorial election, did you vote for Ventura, Coleman, Humphrey, some other candidate or did you not vote?

ventura Table 1
1998 GUBERNATORIAL VOTE
	Frequency	Percentage
Ventura	180	31
Coleman	145	25
Humphrey	102	18
Other	15	3
Did Not Vote	127	22
Don’t Know	6	1
Total	575	100

ventura Table 2
1998 GUBERNATORIAL VOTE -NONVOTERS STATISTICALLY REMOVED-
	Frequency	Percentage
Ventura	180	40
Coleman	145	33
Humphrey	102	23
Other	15	4
Total	442	100

Comment: Actual vote for Ventura was 37%, Coleman 34% and Humphrey 29%. It is not unusual after an election for polling research to find a "halo" effect around the winner. That is, voters that actually voted for a candidate that lost eventually indicate that they voted for the winner of the election.

If the election for governor were held again, would you vote for Ventura?

ventura Table 3
vote again for ventura
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	242	41
No	277	46
Not Sure	60	10
Don’t Know	17	3
Total	596	100

How would you rate the performance of Jesse Ventura as Governor: excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?

VENTURA Table 4
OVERALL EVALUATION OF VENTURA
	Frequency	Percentage
Excellent	36	6
Pretty good	282	47
Only Fair	178	30
Poor	93	15
Don’t Know	12	2
Total	601	100

VENTURA Table 5
pioneer press tracking poll
OVERALL EVALUATION OF VENTURA
	Percentages
	Dec. ‘98	April ‘99	July ‘99	Oct. ‘99
Excellent	14	12	11	7
Pretty good	55	45	45	36
Only Fair	12	24	35	31
Poor	3	2	8	25
Don’t Know	16	17	1	1
Total	100	100	100	100

Which of the following statements comes closest to your point of view?

VENTURA Table 6
view of ventura
	Frequency	Percentage
Governor Ventura is a needed breath of fresh air in state government	162	27
Governor Ventura is he an embarrassment to the state	130	22
It is too soon to judge Governor Ventura’s performance	222	37
None of the Above	80	13
Don’t Know	7	1
Total	601	100

Comment: The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported in October, 1999 that 30% of respondents in a poll they commissioned suggested that Ventura is a "breath of fresh air", 43% said he is an "embarrassment", 20% said it is "too soon to judge" and 7% said he is a breath of fresh air, an embarrassment or neither.

Do you think Governor Ventura is interested in promoting himself, the interests of Minnesota or both when he grants interviews to national magazines and appears on national television talks and news shows?

VENTURA Table 7
ventura and the national media
	Frequency	Percentage
Promoting himself	197	33
Promoting Minnesota	53	9
Both	322	54
Not Sure	10	2
Don’t Know	14	2
Total	596	100

Do you think the local media have been too harsh on Governor Ventura or have they treated Governor Ventura fairly?

VENTURA Table 8
how media has treated ventura
	Frequency	Percentage
Too harsh on Governor Ventura	235	39
Treating Governor Ventura fairly	315	52
Not Sure	34	6
Don’t Know	16	3
Total	600	100

Governor Ventura rarely grants interviews with Minnesota reporters or journalists. Do think this limits the amount of information the public obtains about how Ventura is governing?

VENTURA Table 9
lack of information due to few local interviews
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	215	36
No	327	55
Not Sure	28	5
Don’t Know	25	4
Total	595	100

UNICAMERAL VERSUS BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE

These questions are intended to gather public opinion about most of, if not all, the assertions made by the proponents of a unicameral legislature. All questions were subject to cross tabulation analysis. We examined response distribution for differences based on who the respondents voted for in last year’s gubernatorial election, party affiliation, ideology and the extent of power the respondents would like to see the legislature have in the future.

The party affiliation categories are combined party categories. We combined respondents who always vote Democratic and sometimes vote Democratic into a single DFL Party category. We combined independent but closer to Democrats, independent and independent but closer to Republican into a single independent category. We also combined sometime vote Republican and always vote Republican into a single Republican category. We declared other party affiliation, apolitical and don’t know responses missing for purposes of the cross tabulation analysis. The ideological categories are combined from how the information was gathered. We combined very liberal and somewhat liberal into a single liberal category and we combined very conservative and somewhat conservative into a single conservative category.

We looked for one question/issue that might be the most altered by the change from a two to one chamber legislature and also might have the most influence on the legislature. The question we decided that had the most influence is whether the respondents want the legislature to have more, the same or less power among the three branches of government in the future.

Unicameral Assertion One:

A bicameral legislature is no longer necessary for representational purposes. Federal courts require the election of members of both houses from equal population districts. Thus, the two chambers no longer are justified on representational grounds.

Bicameral Response One:

Indeed, house districts and senate districts are now based on population. A senator, however, represents a larger, more diverse population and a house member represents a more cohesive constituency. Thus, a two chamber legislature may remain necessary if house and senate districts differ. Regardless, a two chamber legislature ensure each person in Minnesota has two legislators in St. Paul. The following question was constructed to seek citizen view on whether a bicameral legislature is no longer necessary for representational purposes.

Currently, each person in Minnesota has two elected representatives representing them in the Minnesota legislature, one member of the house and one senator. Do you personally think this gives you better or worse representation than if you only had one representative?

unicameral Table 1
Two vs. one Representative
	Frequency	Percentage
Better With Two	388	67
Worse With One	95	16
Don’t Know	100	17
Total	583	100

The data clearly shows that Minnesotans are of the opinion they have better representation with two legislators than they might with one legislator. The cross tabulation analysis shows no differences among those that voted for Ventura, Coleman or Humphrey in 1998. We found no differences between liberals, moderates or conservatives. We found slight distribution differences on this question when we controlled for party affiliation. Reform Party identifiers were less likely (50%) to favor better representation with two legislators than were DFLers (75%), Republicans (67%) or independent (60%). Conversely, Reformers are more likely (31%) to claim that two representatives are worse than one than are DFLers (14%), Republicans (18%) or independent (19%) identifiers. We find it plausible that Reform Party identifiers are taking their cue from Governor Ventura, who is an ardent support of a unicameral legislature.

The proponents of a single house legislature argue that a one chamber legislature will increase the power of the legislative branch in the three branch system of government. The data suggests that those respondents the prefer a more powerful legislature also prefer two representatives in that legislature. Unicameral Table 2 shows the results of this cross tabulation.

unicameral Table 2
cross tabulation view of future leg. by two vs. one Rep.
Column Pct.	View of Legislature
Two vs. One Rep.	Powerful	Same	Weaker
Better With Two	74%	70%	53%
Worse With Two	15%	16%	25%
Don’t Know	11%	14%	22%
Total	100%	100%	100

Unicameral Assertion Two:

The supporters of a unicameral legislature argue a one chamber legislature will be more accessible and responsive to the citizenry. These objectives would be accomplished because how a one chamber functions is easy to comprehend and thus, one, more accessible and, two, easier to participate in legislative activity. Further, because a single legislature would be almost transparent, opportunities for professional lobbyist who know how to play "inside ball" would not have an advantage over less organized and less moneyed citizen groups. A unicameral legislature favors the easy formation of majorities and are able to influence legislation without the interference of special or minority interests.

Bicameral Response Two:

Those that support a unicameral legislature assume the average Minnesotan finds the current two chamber Minnesota legislature too difficult to comprehend and thus unable to follow the lawmaking process. This notion is tested in a variety of ways by the following 11 questions. This section is labeled "Questions about Minnesotans knowledge of their legislature".

The supporters of a unicameral legislature additionally argue the role of professional lobbyist will be diminished in a one chamber legislature. The role of the professional lobbyist is not necessarily dependent on a one or two chamber legislature. The role of the lobbyist may depend more on customs, traditions and legislative practices. It is possible that a one chamber legislature offers an easier work environment for the professional lobbyist. Regardless, the anticipated role of lobbyist in a one chamber legislature is examined in the 12^th question listed under this assertion. This section is labeled "Anticipated Role of Lobbyist in a One House Legislature".

Finally, a legislature constructed to favor majority rule may indeed be able to ignore minority or special interests. At the same time, it might be equally important that a "good" legislature is one that structurally includes minority interests in debate and decision making. This notion is tested in the 13^th question of this section. This section is labeled "Bicameralism and the Protection of Rights".

Questions about Minnesotans knowledge of their legislature

Are you personally very aware, aware, unaware, or very unaware of the debate about changing the Minnesota legislature from bicameral to unicameral?

unicameral Table 3
aware of change debate
	Frequency	Percentage
Very Aware	76	13
Aware	300	50
Unaware	126	21
Very Unaware	84	14
Don't Know	9	2
Total	595	100

 The data shows a full one-third of Minnesotans claim to be aware of the debate about changing the legislature. We suggest that this implies that Minnesotans are much better informed about the legislature than the proponents of a unicameral legislature suggest. The cross tabulation analysis adds very little to the analysis of this question. We would note that those respondents who voted for Humphrey (20%) and Coleman (18%) last year are twice as likely to be very aware of the debate than are Ventura voters (8%), but Ventura voters are only slightly more unaware of very unaware (25% and 14%, respectively) of the debate compared to Coleman (11% and 10%, respectively) and Humphrey voters (18% and 12% respectively). In terms of party affiliation, DFLers (15%), Republicans (13%) and Independent (15%) identifiers are about three times more likely to be very aware of the debate than are Reform Party (4%) identifiers. No other distribution differences by party exist. We also could not find any differences between ideology.

In terms of the future power position of the legislature, the only differences we found were those respondents that want a more powerful legislature in the future are less (39%) aware of the debate than are those that want the legislature the stay the same (58%) and those that want it weaker (50%). Also, those that want a more powerful future legislature are more likely to be unaware of the debate (32%) than are those that want the legislature to stay the same (19%) and those that want it weaker (16%).

Are you personally very familiar, familiar, unfamiliar or very unfamiliar with how the state legislature functions?

unicameral Table 4
familiarity with legislature
	Frequency	Percentage
Very familiar	72	12
Familiar	340	57
Unfamiliar	149	25
Very Unfamiliar	32	5
Don’t Know	4	1
Total	597	100

Over two-thirds of the respondents claim to be familiar with how the legislature functions. The assertion that a two chamber legislature should be replaced with a simpler, more readily understandable one chamber legislature is not supported with this data. Minnesotans claim to know how the legislature functions. The cross tabulation analysis shows that previous gubernatorial vote, party, ideology and future power of the legislature make no difference for how familiar or unfamiliar a respondent is about how the legislature functions.

How many members are there in the Minnesota State Legislature?

unicameral Table 5
size of legislature
	Frequency	Percentage
201	2	0
Other:25-over 597	140	23
Don’t Know	455	77
Total	595	100

It is obvious that almost no one we interviewed knew the size of the two chamber legislature. We do not think this finding supports the assertion that the two chamber legislature should be replaced. At the time this question was written, only one of the three principal investigators knew the exact number of legislators in the two chambers, and all three principal investigators have doctoral degrees in political science. Similar to the previous question, cross tabulation analysis adds nothing of particular value to the analysis of this question.

Who is the Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives? Is it Tom Pugh, Roger Moe, Steve Sviggum, Dick Day or Dark Starr?

unicameral Table 6
speaker of the house
	Frequency	Percentage
Tom Pugh	12	2
Roger Moe	180	30
Steven Sviggum	152	26
Dick Day	1	0
Dark Starr	5	1
Don’t Know	244	41
Total	594	100

Although only 25% identified Steven Sviggum as the Speaker of the House, we suggest that is pretty good. As a matter of fact, only 40% of Coleman voters identified Swiggum and only 33% of Republican identifiers (same as Independent Party identifiers) picked Sviggum from the list. We found no differences based on ideology nor on the future role of the legislature.

Who is the Senate Majority Leader? Is it Dick Day, Roger Moe, Steve Sviggum, Tom Pugh, or Tom Benard?

unicameral Table 7
senate majority leader
	Frequency	Percentage
Dick Day	10	2
Roger Moe	195	33
Steven Sviggum	57	10
Tom Pugh	7	1
Tom Benard	11	2
Don’t Know	314	52
Total	594	100

In regards to identifying the Senate Majority Leader, Roger Moe, one-third of the respondents answered correctly. Similar to the conclusion we noted about the House Speaker, we suggest that if one-third of Minnesotans are able to identify the Senate Leader, the population is reasonably well informed. Ventura voters (34%) identified Roger Moe a little less than did Coleman (41%) and Humphrey (42%) voters. It is interesting that Coleman and Humphrey voters picked Moe at almost the same frequency. Republican (40%) voters identified Moe more often than both DFL (32%), independent (34%) and Reform Party (19%) voters. Ideology offers no useful insights. Although not significant, those that would like to see a weaker state legislature were more slightly more likely to pick Moe more than those that would like to see a stable legislature or a more powerful legislature.

Do you find that the current two chamber Minnesota state legislature makes it very difficult, difficult or not difficult for you personally to follow the lawmaking process?

unicameral Table 8
ability to follow lawmaking
	Frequency	Percentage
Very Difficult	45	8
Difficult	247	42
Not Difficult	201	34
Don’t Know	97	16
Total	590	100

One-half of the respondents find the lawmaking process difficult to follow. The rules of any legislature are often difficult to understand and every legislature that we are aware of holds training sessions for newly elected legislators. Thus, we are not surprised to find that one-half of our respondents are of the opinion that the lawmaking process is difficult to understand. It is equally important to note that one-third of the respondents do not find the lawmaking process difficult to understand. The data is beginning to show that one-third of Minnesota adults claim to be well informed about the legislature.

Cross tabulation analysis shows that Ventura voters (11%) are twice as likely as Coleman (6%) and Humphrey (6%) voters to find the lawmaking process very difficult to follow. More, but not twice the percentage, of Coleman (38%) and Humphrey (45%) voters find the lawmaking process not difficult to understand compared to Ventura (28%) voters. Slightly fewer Coleman (38%) and Humphrey (41%) voters find the lawmaking process difficult to follow compared to Ventura (48%) voters. In terms of party identification, slightly more Reform Party (62%) identifiers than Republicans (59%), DFLers (45%) or independents (59%) find the lawmaking process very difficult or difficult to follow. The only differences we found in terms of ideology is that moderates (47%) and conservatives (43%) seem to find it more difficult than liberals (34%) to follow the lawmaking process. Those respondents who would like to see the legislature stay the same in terms of power, do not find the lawmaking process as difficult to follow as those that would like the legislature be more power or less powerful. Those that would like to see the legislature weakened indicated that they do not find the legislative process difficult to follow at about one-half the rate (19%) as those that want to keep legislative power about the same (41%).

Would it be less difficult for you personally to follow the lawmaking process if there was only a one chamber legislature?

This question was asked only of those who either responded very difficult or difficult to the previous question.

unicameral Table 9
follow better with one house
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	212	73
No	44	15
Don’t Know	34	12
Total	290	100

As we expected, those that find the two chamber difficult to understand are of the opinion that one house would be easier to comprehend. Indeed, if a one chamber legislature is smaller and more transparent, it should be easier to understand and follow the lawmaking process.

Do you personally find that the current two chamber Minnesota state legislature makes it very difficult, difficult, or not difficult for you to contact your legislators?

unicameral Table 10
contact legislators
	Frequency	Percentage
Very Difficult	25	4
Difficult	87	15
Not Difficult	323	55
Don’t Know	158	26
Total	593	100

Only approximately 20% of our respondents are of the opinion that the two chamber legislature makes it difficult for them to contact their legislators. Of the remainder, 55%, do not find that the two chamber legislature is a barrier to contacting their legislators and 25% do not know if the two chamber legislature is a barrier. Clearly, the data from this question would not support a radical change to the Minnesota Legislature.

The cross tabulation analysis shows the Coleman and Humphrey voters are about 20% more likely (69% and 73%, respectively) than Ventura voters to find it not difficult to contact their legislators. Ventura voters are twice as likely (29%) to not know if it is difficult or not difficult to contact their legislators than are Coleman (17%) or Humphrey (12%) voters. Ventura voters find it slightly more difficult or very difficult to contact their legislators than Coleman and Humphrey voters. Reform Party identifiers are about twice as likely to find it difficult (27%) to contact their legislators than DLFers (11%), Republicans (12%) and Independents (18%). Equally, DFLers (58%), Republicans (60%) and Independents (60%) are much more likely to not find it difficult to contact their legislators compared to Reform Party (23%) identifiers.

In terms of ideology, the only differences shown by the cross tabulation analysis is that conservatives are twice (6%) as likely to find it very difficult to contact their legislators compared to liberals (3%) and moderates (3%). We only found one difference when we examined the future of the legislature to this question. Those that want the legislature to stay the same are about 20% higher in the not difficult to contact legislator category than those that want either a more powerful or weaker future legislators.

Would it be less difficult for you personally to contact your legislators if there was only a one chamber legislature?

This question was asked only of those who either responded very difficult or difficult to the previous question.

unicameral Table 11
contact better with one house
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	64	58
No	24	21
Don’t Know	24	21
Total	112	100

Do you find the current two chamber Minnesota state legislature discourages citizen participation?

unicameral Table 12
two house hurt citizen participation
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes-Hurt	147	25
No-Hurt	302	51
Don’t Know	143	24
Total	592	100

Only 25% of the respondents are of the opinion that the two chamber legislature hinders their civic participation. Again, support to drastically alter the structure of the Minnesota Legislature is absent.

Unicameral Table 13 clearly shows that Humphrey voters, compared to Coleman and Ventura voters, do not think the two chamber legislature hurts their ability to participate. One-half of the Ventura voters think the two chamber legislature harms their ability to participate. One-third think the two chambers are harmful to participation and one-fourth do not know if the two chambers have a positive or negative influence on participation.

The cross tabulation results of political party affiliation and ideology show no differences. Those that would like to see a weaker legislature in the future are more likely to believe the current two chamber legislators harms participation. Those that would like to keep the existing balance of power among the branches of state government are more likely to believe the two chamber legislator does not harm participation.

unicameral Table 13
cross tabulation Gov. vote by two houses hurt participation
Column Pct.	Gubernatorial Vote
	Ventura	Coleman	Humphrey
Yes-Hurt	30%	25%	18%
No-Hurt	46%	60%	66%
Don’t Know	24%	15%	16%
Total	100%	100%	100%

Would a one chamber better encourage citizen participation?

unicameral Table 14
one house helps participation
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	192	32
No	212	36
Don’t Know	186	32
Total	590	100

When we asked all respondents if a one chamber legislature would help boost civic participation, only one-third answered yes. The table above, coupled with Table 12, offers little evidence to support a change in the Minnesota Legislature. In terms of cross tabulation, Ventura voters (40%) are much more likely to suggest a one chamber legislature is better for participation than are Coleman (25%) and Humphrey (26%) voters. Conversely, Coleman and Humphrey voters are almost twice as likely to suggest that a one house legislature will not enhance participation. Reform Party (56%) identifiers are more to think a one chamber legislator will help participation than DFLers (32%), Independents (30%), and Republicans (32%). Conversely, a greater percentage of DFLers, Republicans, and Independents do not think a one house will enhance participation compared to Reform Party identifiers.

Moderates (34%) and Conservatives (35%) are more likely to think a one house will help participation more so than do liberals (28%). Equally important, at least one-third of liberals, moderates and conservatives do not think a one chamber legislature will enhance participation. In terms of the future power of the legislature, those that would like the power balance to remain the same are less likely (about twice) to suggest a one chamber will enhance participation. Almost one-half the percentage of weaker and more powerful legislature respondents than stay the same respondents suggest a one house legislature will not help participation.

Overall, how do you rate the performance of the Minnesota state legislature? Is it excellent, pretty good, fair or poor?

unicameral Table 15
rating of legislature
	Frequency	Percentage
Excellent	9	1
Pretty good	263	44
Only fair	242	41
Poor	47	8
Don’t Know	34	6
Total	595	100

If the proponents of a one chamber legislature seek to change the legislature to enhance how Minnesotans evaluate the work of the legislature, we are unsure if the effort is required. Nearly one-half of our respondents are of the opinion that their legislature performs at the excellent or pretty good level. Table 16 shows the distribution (percentages only) of party affiliation. Table 17 shows the cross tabulation analysis (percentages only) of three of the independent variables. The data clearly shows that Humphrey voters, DFLers, liberals, and those that want the balance of power among the three branches of government left the same, evaluate the job of the legislature higher than all other groups we examined.

unicameral Table 16
cross tabulation Various Ind. var. and Leg. rating
	Percentages
Leg. Rating	DFL	Ind.	Rep.	Reform
Exc./Pretty Good	58%	48%	37%	315
Only Fair/Poor	37%	46%	605	69%
Don’t Know	5%	6%	35	0%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%

unicameral Table 17
cross tabulation Various Ind. var. and Leg. rating
Column Pct.	Gubernatorial Vote
Leg. Rating	Ventura	Coleman	Humphrey
Exc./Pretty Good	43%	46%	62%
Only Fair/Poor	52%	52%	36%
Don’t Know	5%	2%	2%
Total	100%	100%	100%
	Ideology
Leg. Rating	Liberal	Moderate	Conservative
Exc./Pretty Good	55%	46%	40%
Only Fair/Poor	41%	49%	56%
Don’t Know	4%	5%	4%
Total	100%	100%	100%
	Future of Legislature
Leg. Rating	Powerful	Same	Weaker
Exc./Pretty Good	45%	52%	30%
Only Fair/Poor	50%	45%	70%
Don’t Know	5%	3%	0%
Total	100%	100%	100%

Anticipated Role of Lobbyist in a One House Legislature

If Minnesota had a one chamber legislature, do you think lobbyists would have more, the same or less role in the lawmaking process?

unicameral Table 18
role of lobbyist in one house
	Frequency	Percentage
More	185	31
The Same	145	25
Less	150	26
Don’t Know	109	18
Total	589	100

The data clearly shows only one in four Minnesotans think a one chamber legislature will reduce the role of lobbyists in the lawmaking process. A larger percentage, 31%, noted that the role of lobbyists would increase in a one chamber legislature!

The cross tabulation (see Unicameral Table 19) shows that the distribution of Ventura and Coleman voters is almost equal in the three-more, same, less-response categories. Only with the Humphrey voters do we see large differences. Humphrey voters are of the opinion that a one chamber legislature will increase, not decease, the role of lobbyists. Ideology and party affiliation offers little assistance in understanding the distribution of opinion on this question. Across party categories, we find no differences. Within the DFL Party, however, a larger portion of respondents think the role of lobbyists will increase, not stay the same or decrease. Within the independent category, Republican Party and Reform Party, about one-fourth to one-third of the respondents equally fall into the question response categories. In terms of the distribution of responses within the three ideological categories, about one-fourth to one-third of the responses fall into the question response categories. Across response categories, liberals, more than moderates and conservatives, are of the opinion that the role of lobbyists will increase in a one house legislature.

unicameral Table 19
cross tabulation Gov. vote by role of lobbyist in one house
Column Pct.	Gubernatorial Vote
Role Lobbyist	Ventura	Coleman	Humphrey
More	45%	31%	38%
Same	29%	27%	23%
Less	33%	25%	19%
Don’t Know	13%	17%	21%
Total	100%	100%	100%
Column Pct.	Future Power of Legislature
Role Lobbyist
More	44%	32%	20%
Same	16%	27%	29%
Less	22%	25%	36%
Don’t Know	18%	15%	15%
Total	100%	100%	100%

Bicameralism and the Protection of Rights

Do you think the two chamber legislature in Minnesota helps to protect the rights of all Minnesotans?

unicameral Table 20
two houses protect rights
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	320	54
No	152	26
Don’t Know	116	20
Total	588	100

Over half of our respondents are of the opinion that a two house legislature protects the rights of Minnesotans. The assertion that a one house better protects the rights of the citizens is not well support by a majority of the respondents. In many respects, a two chamber legislature is structured to ensure one house is able to check the work of the other house. Thus, if one house tries to pass a law trampling on the rights of a minority, however the minority is defined, the second house could theoretically stop the effort by not passing the law and consequently sending it to the governor.

The cross tabulation analysis shows that Ventura, Coleman and Humphrey voters all support the notion that a two chamber legislature protect citizen rights. Humphrey voters (67%) have a stronger felt opinion than do Coleman voters (56%), who have a stronger opinion than Ventura voters (48%) of the notion that a two house legislature protects the rights of all Minnesotans. In terms of party affiliation, DFLers (65%) are strongest, followed by Reform Party (62%), with Republicans (53%) in third and independents (45%) fourth in terms of strength of support for the two houses and how they might protect citizen rights. Over one-half of liberal (58%), moderates (54%) and conservatives (54%) support the notion that two houses protect citizen rights better than one house. Those respondents that support a more powerful legislature in the future also support (63%) the idea that two houses protect citizen rights. Of those that wish to see the legislative branch maintain its current power, 59% are of the opinion that two houses protect citizen rights. Of those that wish to see the legislative branch weaker in the future, only 37% think the two chamber legislature protects citizen rights.

Unicameral Assertion Three:

The proponents of a Minnesota unicameral legislature argue that a one chamber lawmaking body is more accountable to the citizenry because one house makes it is easier to fix responsibility for decisions. In particular, unicameral supporters argue accountability is greatly enhanced because a one chamber legislature will eliminate the need for conference committees.

Bicameral Response Three:

If a legislator desires to evade responsibility, it is equally possible to do so in a one chamber legislature as it is in two. Perhaps the tactics of "playing the game" will change. A legislator will not be able to propose a bill in his/her house, knowing it will not be supported in the other chamber. The notion that the two chamber legislature makes it difficult for citizens to hold their legislators accountable is tested by the first two questions in this section.

Clearly, a one chamber legislature would eliminate the need to create conference committees that have the purpose of "ironing out" differences of bills passed by the house and senate. The key issue seems to be regarding the concentration of power. The proponents of a unicameral legislature argue assert that the conference committees concentrate power to decide important legislative matters in the hands of a few members. The third question in this section examines whether Minnesotans think the elimination of conference committees will reduce or eliminate the power of making important decisions in the hands of a few.

Do you personally think the current two chamber Minnesota state legislature makes it very difficult, difficult, or not difficult for you to hold your legislators accountable for their decisions?

unicameral Table 21
hold legislators accountable
	Frequency	Percentage
Very Difficult	69	12
Difficult	208	35
Not Difficult	209	35
Don’t Know	104	18
Total	590	100

Almost a majority (47%) think the two chamber legislature makes it very difficult or difficult to hold individual legislators accountable for their actions. A long term legislator told the principal investigators that if a politician is good at only one thing, that one thing is shifting responsibility. It seems that our respondents are aware of this phenomenon. The same legislator also told us that it would not make a difference if a legislature is consists of one or two chambers. If someone wants to shift responsibility, it will be accomplished in one house as easily as two. Nonetheless, one-half of Humphrey voters believe is not difficult to hold legislators accountable in a two chamber legislature. Ventura voters overwhelmingly (59%) find it very difficult or difficult to hold legislators accountable in the two chamber legislature. Of the Coleman voters, 46% believe it is very difficult or difficult to hold legislators accountable in a two chamber legislature and 40% think that it is not difficult.

In terms of political party affiliation, 57% of Reform Party identifiers find it very difficult or difficult to hold their legislators accountable. This compares with Republicans (52%), independents (50%) and DFLers (40%). Ideology plays a role in the perception of holding legislators accountable. Fifty percent of conservatives are of the opinion that a two chamber legislature makes it very difficult or difficult to hold individual legislators accountable. The percent drops to 49% for moderates and 42% for liberals. Sixty percent of "weak" future legislature respondents find it very difficult or difficult to hold legislators accountable in a two chamber legislature. Only 35% of "about the same" future legislature respondents find that the two chamber legislature makes it very difficult or difficult to hold legislators responsible. A little more than a majority (53%) of those that would like a more powerful legislature in the future find it very difficult or difficult to hold individual legislators accountable in a two chamber legislature.

Would it be less difficult if there was only a one chamber legislature?

This question was asked only of those who either responded very difficult or difficult to the previous question.

unicameral Table 22
accountability with one house
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	197	71
No	56	20
Don’t Know	24	9
Total	277	100

Before a bill is sent to the governor for signature into law or vetoed, it must be approved by both the House and the Senate. If the two chambers differ on a specific bill a conference committee is organized to iron out the difference. Some people argue these committees are bad because they concentrate power to decide important legislative matters. In a single chamber or unicameral legislature, there would be no need for conference committees. Do you think this would eliminate the concentration of power in making important?

unicameral Table 23
one house eliminates concentration of power
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	284	48
No	226	38
Don’t Know	79	14
Total	589	100

The data shows that almost one-half of the respondents believe a one house legislature will eliminate the concentration of power in the hands of a few. Nonetheless, the data does not clearly support the position of the supporters of a unicameral legislature. A full 52% either do not think or do not know if a unicameral legislature will eliminate elitism. Ventura’s voters are the strongest (54%) in their opinion that a one house legislature will eliminate the concentration of power. Coleman’s voters came in second, at 52%, and Humphrey’s voters came in third at 42%.

In terms of party affiliation, Reformers are strongest (65%) among the party categories in the view that a one house will eliminate concentration of power. The Republicans are second, but not even close at 51%. Independents, in this analysis look like Republican at 49% and DFLers are the weakest at 44% in their belief that a one house will eliminate the concentration of power. The cross tabulation analysis found no differences among ideological groups. About one-half of liberals, moderates and conservatives alike think a one chamber will eliminate concentration of power, about 40% say "no" and the remained indicated they did not know.

Unicameral Assertion Four:

The proponents of a unicameral legislature argue that a single chamber legislature will enhance the power of the legislature within the state governmental system. At one time, legislative excesses were real and dangerous. The problem today, according to the proponents of unicameralism, is no longer excessive legislative authority but executive and bureaucratic dominance and legislative infirmity.

Bicameral Response Four:

The proponents of a bicameral legislature argue that dividing legislative authority protects the citizenry from inherently arrogant and dangerous legislatures. This proposition is tested in the following three questions.

In the future, would you personally like to see the legislature more powerful, about the same or weaker in the lawmaking process?

unicameral Table 24
legislature more powerful
	Frequency	Percentage
More Powerful	100	17
The Same	368	63
Weaker	74	12
Don’t Know	45	8
Total	587	100

The data clearly shows that Minnesotans are opposed to increasing the power of the legislature. One of the primary reasons to change the current legislature from two to one chambers does not have support among Minnesotans. If the data from this question and the next two provide guidance to those that would like to increase or decrease the power of the legislature or the governor in the lawmaking process, it is clear that the existing balance of power should not be disturbed. Ventura voters, twice as often as Coleman and Humphrey voters, indicated that they would like to see the legislature more powerful in the future. Humphrey voters (83%) and Coleman voters (80%) more strongly support keeping the power of the legislature the same. Ventura’s voters came in at 69%.

Party affiliation has an interesting influence on the distribution of opinion on this question. Reformers (23%) and DFLers (24%) both weigh in the same in terms of preference for a more powerful legislature; independents come in at 12% and Republicans at 17%. Sixty-five percent of both DFLers and independents are of the opinion that the power enjoyed by the legislature should remain the same. Reformers came in at 58% and Republicans at 56%. Of the DFLers, only 6% would like to see a weaker legislature. Independents and Reformers are at 15% and 17% of the Republicans would like to see a weaker legislature in the future.

In the future, would you personally like to see the office of the governor more powerful, about the same or weaker in the lawmaking process?

unicameral Table 25
governor more powerful
	Frequency	Percentage
More Powerful	84	14
The Same	426	72
Weaker	56	10
Don’t Know	22	4
Total	588	100

Consistent with the analysis presented regarding the previous question, the overwhelming number of respondents do not want any future change in the power of the governor’s office. Clearly, if a unicameral legislature increases the power of the legislature, one or both of the other branches of government --executive or judicial -- most lose power. It would appear that Minnesotans do not want the governors office to lose power. We did not ask about the state court system.

In terms of the cross tabulation analysis, Ventura’s voters, as expected, support increasing the power of the governor’s office almost three times as much as do Coleman and Humphrey voters. Consequently, a large percentage of Coleman (80%) and Humphrey (83%) voters compared to Ventura’s voters (69%) wish the power of the governor’s office to stay the same in the future. Interestingly, Reform Party identifiers (8%) are weakest of the four party groups (average of 15%) to prefer a more powerful office of governor in the future. Consequently, Reform Party identifiers (80%) are stronger in their opinion of keeping the office of the governor the same compared to the other (average of 74%) party groups.

In terms of ideology, conservatives are the strongest (16%) in terms of increasing the power of the governor’s office. Twelve percent of liberals and moderates prefer a more powerful future governor. On average, 74% (with a spread of 5%) of conservatives, moderates and liberals wish to see the power of the governor stay the same. The cross tabulation of future legislative power versus the future of the governor office is interesting and warrants a table to show the analysis.

unicameral Table 26
cross tabulation Leg. future Power by gov. future power
Column Pct.	Legislative Future Power
Gov. Power	More	Same	Less
More	31%	9%	18%
Same	55%	84%	53%
Less	12%	5%	28%
Don’t Know	2%	2%	1%
Total	100%	100%	100%

In the future, would you personally like Minnesota state government do more, do less or do about the same as it does now with respect to the various issues facing the state?

unicameral Table 27
future role of state gov’t
	Frequency	Percentage
Do More	257	44
Do Less	81	14
Do About The Same	224	38
Don’t Know	25	4
Total	587	100

The table clearly shows that almost equal numbers of respondents favor the state government doing more or the same in the future. Clearly, few respondents favor a diminished role of state government in the future. The cross tabulation analysis shows that Ventura (46%) and Humphrey (47%) voters equally support the state government doing more. Coleman’s voters (33%) are not as strong in their support of an expanded role of the state government. It is not surprising the Colman’s voters would be less inclined to see a more active state government than Humphrey’s voters. It is, however, a surprise to see Ventura’s voters seeking an expansion of state government. Humphrey’s voters (43%) and Coleman’s voters (41%) are stronger than Ventura’s voters (33%) in their opinion that the state government should continue to do tomorrow what it does today. Far fewer of Humphrey’s voters (3%) compared to Coleman’s (23%) and Ventura’s (18%) support the state government doing less in the future.

One-half of the DFLers and Reformers support the state government doing more in the future. This compares to 41% of Republicans and 38% of independents. Consistent with Humphrey voter opinions, only 5% of DFLers wish the state to do less in the future. Whereas, 15% of independents, 23% of Republicans and 23% of Reformers support the notion of the state doing less in the future. Forty-two percent of DFLers and 43% of independents think the state should do in the future what it does now. This compares to 33% of Republicans and 23% of Reformers.

In terms of ideology, we find no particular differences across liberals (45%), moderates (47%) or conservatives (41%) in the "do more" category. Only 7% of liberal respondents think the state should do less in the future. This compares to 10% of moderates and 23% of conservatives. Thirty-two percent of conservatives, 38% of moderates and 44% of liberals are of the opinion that the state should continue doing in the future what is does now.

The cross tabulation analysis of the future role of the legislature and the general state’s role is extremely interesting. In terms of whether the legislature should be more powerful in the future, 60% said the state should do more in the future, 9% said less and 31% said the same. Those respondents who said the state legislative power should stay the same, 43% said the state should do more, 10% said less and 44% said about the same. Of those respondents who said the state legislature should have less power, 28% said the state should so more, 46% said do less and 23% said do about the same.

Unicameral Assertion Five:

The proponents of a unicameral legislature argue that a single chamber legislature will increase the efficiency of processing legislation. They argue that a bicameral lawmaking system, by definition is inefficient, because most bills go through duplicate committees, two floor debates and possibly conference committees.

Bicameral Response Five:

Efficient lawmaking is not necessarily a positive attribute of a legislature. Wasted time, money and other resources is something to avoid, but strict efficiency may not be the most laudable goal. It is possible that important aspects of problems are overlooked if lawmaking speed is the primary goal. Speedy lawmaking is best accomplished by the fewest, perhaps one or only a few, lawmakers as possible. An autocracy, not a democracy, is defined as rule by one. An oligarchy, not a democracy, is defined as rule by a few. A democracy or a republic is defined as rule by the many. The following question examines the proposition of which type of lawmaking -- speedy or deliberative -- Minnesotans prefer.

Some people argue that a single chamber legislature favors speedy decision making? Generally, do you personally favor speedy decision making or is a more deliberate decision making process better in a legislature?

unicameral Table 28
speedy vs. deliverative decision making
	Frequency	Percentage
Speedy	181	31
Deliberate	354	60
Don’t Know	51	9
Total	586	100

The data is clear. Minnesotans prefer a more deliberative decision making process than a speedy process. Therefore, they prefer a two chamber legislature. The cross tabulation analysis shows almost no differences between party identifiers. Approximately 30% of Dflers, Republicans, independents and Reformers favor speedy decision making compared to 60% favoring a more deliberative process. The same percentage are found when examining ideology.

In terms of future status of the legislature, about 40% of all respondents in all three categories favors speedy decision making compared to 50% favoring a more deliberative approach. In terms of voters, twice the percentage of Ventura’s voters (41%) compared to Humphreys’ (21%) favor speedy decision making. Coleman is at 31%. Fifty percent of Ventura’s voters favor a more deliberative approach to decision making, while 70% of Coleman voters and Humphrey voters favor a deliberative decision making process.

Unicameral Assertion Six:

The proponents of a unicameral legislature argue that a single chamber legislature will ensure that bills are given thorough and exacting consideration. Because legislation would not go through two sets of committees, floor debates, and votes, legislators need not act quickly on bills. Thus, the legislators may act methodical and exhaustively deliberate over each bill. This has the added attraction of ensuring that each bill is given due consideration and therefore eliminating the need for a second house to check the work of the first.

Bicameral Response Six:

The bicameralist, on the other hand, argue that two houses offer a built in check, therefore, ensuring that legislation is given thorough and thoughtful attention. Two sets of lawmakers with different perspectives and insights ensures a high quality legislative product due to reciprocal oversight. This proposition is tested by the following question.

The concept of checks and balances, that is one legislative house watching and checking the work of the other house, is supposed to prevent one of the houses from passing laws that are not well thought out. The concept also tends to slow the law making process down. Do you think this concept is as necessary today as it was when the country was founded?

unicameral Table 29
WORTH OF CHECKS AND BALANCES
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	362	62
No	175	30
Don’t Know	51	8
Total	588	100

A one chamber legislature eliminates the internal check that the one house has over the other house. The data clearly shows Minnesotans are of the opinion that the time has not yet arrived that that internal check is no longer necessary. The cross tabulation analysis shows that Humphrey voters (68%) and Coleman voters (67%) are stronger than Ventura’s voters (57%) in their opinion that checks and balances remain necessary. Of party identifiers, 69% of Republicans, 65% of DFLers, 58% of independents and only 42% of Reformers think the concept of checks and balances remains necessary. Of the Reformers, 54% don’t think checks and balances is necessary today. Six of ten respondents, regardless of ideology, agree that checks and balances remain necessary today. Most of the respondents that were categorized by view of the future of the legislature are of the opinion that checks and balances remains an important component of the American governmental system.

Unicameral Assertion Seven:

The proponents of a unicameral legislature argue that a single chamber legislature is more economical to operate. The Citizen Committee for a Single-House Legislature suggests that the change from a bicameral legislature of 201 representatives to a single chamber of 135 representatives will save $25 million per year.

Bicameral Response Seven:

The bicameral supporters, as expected, dispute the projected savings and assert that democracy has a cost that might be necessary to pay. The following question inquires whether Minnesotans are prepared to change the structure of the current legislature for a projected savings of $25 million per year.

The proponents of a unicameral Minnesota legislature argue a one chamber legislature of 135 lawmakers will save the taxpayers at least $25 million dollars a year. Opponents of a unicameral legislature dispute this figure. If indeed unicameralism does save money, do you think this is a valid reason to change the Minnesota legislature?

unicameral Table 30
change leg. to save money
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes-Save is Valid	218	37
No-Save isn’t Valid	312	53
Other	15	3
Don’t Know	44	7
Total	589	100

It occurs to the SCSU Survey staff that democracy has a price tag and Minnesotans remain committed to paying to preserve the two chamber legislature. The cross tabulation analysis shows that 40% of Ventura’s voters, compared to 35% of Coleman’s and 33% of Humphrey’s voters are of the opinion that saving $25 million per year is a valid reason to change the legislature. Fifty percent of Ventura’s voters and 60% of both Coleman’s voters and Humphrey’s voters do not think saving $25 million per year warrants changing the legislature from two chambers to one. Reform Party members are stronger (54%) than Ventura voters (40%) in their opinion that saving $25 million per year warrants changing the legislature. The majority of DFLers (59%), independents (55%) and Republicans (51%) do not support changing the legislature to save $25 million per year. Even among conservatives, 51% do not think a $25 million per year saving is sufficient to change the legislature. Liberals (59%) and moderates (55%) also but wish to change the legislature for a savings of $25 million per year.

Conclusion: Two concluding questions were asked of the respondents. First, they were asked whether they favored or opposed changing from a bicameral legislature to a unicameral legislature or wanted more information before deciding. Second, they were asked if the voters should have a say in deciding to change the current Minnesota legislature.

Overall, are you in favor, opposed or would like more information before deciding if Minnesota adopts a unicameral legislature?

unicameral Table 31
favor, oppose or more information
	Frequency	Percentage
Favor	69	12
Opposed	78	13
Would Like More Information	417	71
Don’t Know	25	4
Total	589	100

It is clear a tie exits between those that favor and those that oppose changing from a two house to a one chamber legislature. It is also clear that the almost three of four Minnesotans would like more information about a unicameral legislature before making their final decision. The cross tabulation analysis shows that Ventura voters (17%) are twice as likely to already support changing the legislature from two to one chambers than Humphrey voters (5%). Only slightly are Ventura voters more respective to a one chamber legislature than are Coleman voters (13%). Fewer Ventura voters (8%) than Coleman’s (17%) or Humphrey voters (25%) are opposed to a one chamber legislature. Overall, most voters are asking for more information before deciding to oppose of favor a one chamber legislature.

Consistent with voting history, Reformers (19%) are more likely to support a one house than are Republicans (16%), independents (13%) or DFLers (7%). Again, most respondents are looking for more information about the differences between one and a two house legislature. We found no differences in terms of ideology or future power of the legislature.

Should the voters have a say in deciding to change to a unicameral legislature?

unicameral Table 32
Should voters have say in change
	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	562	95
No	15	3
Don’t Know	12	2
Total	589	100

The data clearly suggests that Minnesotans are of the opinion that they should have a voice in deciding to change the legislature from a bicameral to unicameral. The cross tabulation analysis should that no particular differences exist based on recent gubernatorial vote, party or ideology.

III. SPORTS SECTION

It Appears No Matter How The Question(s) Are Asked, The Minnesota Vikings are Minnesota's Favorite Professional Sports Team, Support for the Twins Continues to Decline, and Minnesotans Are Opposed to Helping the Twins Build A Stadium.

WHAT PROFESSIONAL SPORT SHOLD BE KEPT IN MINNESOTA

In the November, 1999 statewide SCSU Survey a scientific random sample of 602 Minnesota adults were asked what professional sports team, if any, they would like to keep the most in Minnesota. Over half (51%) said the Vikings, 19% said the Twins and the rest were less than 10%. Using slightly different wording in the 2/96 and 10/97 statewide surveys we found essentially the same thing but support for the Twins appears to be declining.

18-34 year olds are the age group most likely to say keep the Vikings while those 65 and older are evenly divided between the Twins and Vikings. Gender differences are minimal.

SHOULD HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTS BE ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR A COUNTY SALES TAX TO HELD PAY FOR 2/3 THIRDS THE COST OF A NEW TWINS STADUIM (IF NOT WHY NOT)

About two thirds of Minnesota residents (62%) would not support allowing Hennepin County residents to be able to vote for a county sales tax to help pay the cost of a new Twin's stadium. Support appears to be even less in Hennepin County.

Those that oppose allowing Hennepin County residents to be able to vote for a county sales tax were asked why they were opposed. They could give multiple reasons for the choices of: opposed to taxes for professional sports; no taxes for rich owners; no taxes for rich players; don't like baseball; other; and, don't know. 38% of the reasons related to opposed to taxes for professional sports while 24% stated rich owners, 15% said taxes for rich players and 6% were related to not liking baseball. About 13% gave a variety of other reasons. There were few differences by any of the demographic groups such as age, region, party, income or other variables.

Student Director Jim Mount played a major role in the analysis of data for these findings. (1/30/2000)

CHARTS RELATING TO SPORTS FROM PREVIOUS YEARS

IV. WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE SECTION

V. DEMOGRAPHIC SECTION

Do you usually consider yourself to be a Democrat, Republican, Reform or independent? (If Democrat or Republican or Reform) Would you say that you always vote Democrat, Republican, Reform or do you sometimes vote for a person of the other party? (If independent) Although you are an independent, do you usually consider yourself to be closer to the Democrats, Republicans or the Reform Party?

Demographic Table 1
PARTY AFFILIATION
	Frequency	Percentage
Always Vote Democratic	47	8
Democrat Who Sometimes Votes For Other Party	131	23
Independent Closer to Democrats	45	8
Independent	88	15
Independent Closer to Republicans	40	7
Republican Who Sometimes Votes For Other Party	93	16
Always Votes Republican	36	6
Reform Party	26	5
Other	26	5
Apolitical	10	2
Don’t Know	30	5
Total	572	100

Thinking about your own general approach to politics, do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, or very conservative?

demographic Table 2
IDEOLOGY
	Frequency	Percentage
Very Liberal	40	7
Somewhat Liberal	123	21
Moderate	186	32
Somewhat Conservative	172	29
Very Conservative	44	8
Don’t Know	19	3
Total	584	100

What age group are you? Are you…

demographic Table 3
AGE
	Frequency	Percentage
18-24	54	9
25-34	97	16
35-44	131	22
45-54	110	19
55-64	85	15
65+	110	19
Don’t Know	1	0
Total	588	100

Are you working now, temporary laid off, unemployed, retired, a household manager, a student or what? (If more than one) What do you consider yourself primarily?

demographic Table 4
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
	Frequency	Percentage
Working Now	390	66
Laid Off	9	2
Unemployed	10	2
Retired	117	20
Disabled	8	1
Household Manager	29	5
Student	26	4
Total	589	100

What…if any…is your religious preference? (If don’t know or no response) Well are you closer to being Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, or something else?

demographic Table 6
religion
	Frequency	Percentage
Catholic	179	31
Baptist	14	2
Lutheran	178	31
Presbyterian	12	2
Methodist	24	4
Episcopalian	9	1
Other (Mormon, etc.)	43	9
Jewish	2	0
None	63	11
Other	45	9
Don’t Know	3	0
Total	572	100

Would you please tell me the range which best represents the total income, before taxes, of all immediate family members living in your household?

demographic Table 7
INCOME
	Frequency	Percentage
Under $10K	23	4
$10 - 15K	23	4
$15 -20K	31	6
$20 - 25K	27	5
$25 - 30K	43	8
$30 - 40K	70	14
$40 - 50K	78	16
$50 - 100K	161	32
Over $100K	40	8
Don’t Know	20	3
Total	516	100

Gender. Imported from the sample

demographic Table 8
GENDER
	Frequency	Percentage
Male	289	48
Female	213	52
Total	602	100

 PREVIOUS FEELING THERMOMETER DATA NEED TO BE REFORMATTED

SCSU SURVEY "FEELING THERMOMETER" RESULTS

Here's a different kind of question. Please think of a thermometer that has a range of 0 to 100 degrees. Id like you to rate your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news. Ratings on the thermometer between 50 and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward the person. Ratings between 0 and 50 mean that you don't feel too favorable toward the person. If we come to a person whose name you don't recognize, you don't need to rate that person. Just tell me and we'll move on to the next one. If you do recognize the name, but don't feel particularly arm or cold toward the person, you would rate the person at the 50 degree mark.

10/88 4/90 2/92 2/93 4-5/94 1/95

MEAN N %* MEAN N %* MEAN N %* MEAN N %* MEAN N %* MEAN N %

GEORGE BUSH 46.9 614 2% 61.3 710 1% 53.1 794 .8% -------------- ---------------------- -------------------

RONALD REAGAN 42.9 625 .2 -------- ------------------ ------------- ---------------------- -------------------

GEORGE LATIMER 58.7 499 20 60.1 571 21 60.3 592 26 --------------- 58.1 455 35% 56.9 418 34%

HUBERT H.

HUMPHREY III 49.7 589 4 53.7 643 10 55.9 723 10 56.7 850 11% 57.0 599 14% 58.3 559 14

ROGER MOE 50.5 260 58 53.6 369 49 50.9 358 55 50.1 444 53 ---------------------- ------------------

ARNE CARLSON 51.9 289 53 52.6 426 41 42.3 763 5 46.5 893 6 51.6 631 9 57.3 643 2

RUDY

BOSCHWITZ 55.5 590 4 52.5 673 6 51.3 760 5 50.0 874 8 45.7 613 12 48.4 595 8

MIKE HATCH ---------------- 50.5 367 49 ----------------- ---------------- 45.8 282 60 --------------------

DAVID

DURENBURGER 56.8 592 5 47.5 677 6 49.5 755 6 41.9 873 8 42.4 624 11 --------------------

DAVE PRINTY ----------------- 48.0 160 78 ------------------ -------------------- ------------ -------------------

JON GRUNSETH ----------------- 46.4 159 78 37.2 666 17 --------------------- ------------ -------------------

RUDY

PERPICH 50.2 611 2 45.3 685 4% 42.5 656 6 44.1 891 6 42.1 617 12 44.5 604 7

MICHAEL

DUKAKIS 52.4 603 3% ---------------- ----------------- ------------------- ---------------------- --------------------

DEE LONG ---------------- ---------------- 51.5 221 72 49.4 333 65 --------------------- -------------------

OAN GROWE ----------------- ---------------- 53.5 596 26 54.0 662 30 ---------------------- -------------------

PAUL

WELLSTONE ---------------- ---------------- 46.8 727 9 47.6 862 8 ---------------------- 47.1 606 7

VIN WEBER ---------------- ---------------- 51.8 422 47 50.5 604 36 ---------------------- -----------------------

DAVID DUKE ---------------- ---------------- 15.2 595 25% ----------------- ---------------------- ----------------------

ANN WYNIA ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- 50.2 180 81 ---------------------- 42.8 569 12

BILL CLINTON ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- 59.9 931 2% 57.9 651 2 51.6 654 1

TONY BOUZA --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------------- 51.1 439 37% -------------------

ALLEN QUIST --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------------- 40.3 332 53 -------------------

MIKE FREEMAN --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------------- 50.7 206 71 ------------------

JOHN MARTY --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------------- 46.7 136 79% ------------------

ROD GRAMS --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------------- ---------------------- 46.5 559 14

ROBERT DOLE --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ------------------- --------------------- 49.5 563 13%

[DON'T KNOW/CAN'T JUDGE EXCLUDED FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE MEAN]

* % THIS FIGURE REPRESENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID THEY COULDN'T JUDGE OR DIDN'T KNOW THE LISTED PERSON.

SCSU SURVEY "FEELING THERMOMETER" RESULTS

Here's a different kind of question. Please think of a thermometer that has a range of 0 to 100 degrees. Id like you to rate your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news. Ratings on the thermometer between 50 and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward the person. Ratings between 0 and 50 mean that you don't feel too favorable toward the person. If we come to a person whose name you don't recognize, you don't need to rate that person. Just tell me and we'll move on to the next one. If you do recognize the name, but don't feel particularly arm or cold toward the person, you would rate the person at the 50 degree mark.

1-2/96 % CAN’T JUDGE 10/96 % CAN’T JUDGE1 2/97 % CAN’T JUDGE

MEAN N DON’T KNOW MEAN N DON’T KNOW MEAN N DON’T KNOW

GEORGE LATIMER 55 404 34% ----------------------- -----------------------------------

HUBERT H.

HUMPHREY III 59 564 13 ---------------------------------- 59 728 9%

ARNE CARLSON 52 616 4 52 656 6% 56 759 5%

JOANNE BENSON 51 299 53 --------------------------------- 51 420 47%

RUDY

BOSCHWITZ 46 584 8 42 659 5% ---------------------------------

BERT MCKASY 47 120 77 ---------------------------------- -----------------------

PAUL

WELLSTONE 51 596 7 48 663 5% ---------------------------------

BILL CLINTON 53 639 1 57 698 1% -----------------------

ROD GRAMS 45 558 13 43 569 18% ---------------------------------

ROBERT DOLE 44 606 6 46 680 2% ----------------------------------

NEWT GINGRICH 36 603 7 ------------------------------------ --------------------------

HILLARY CLINTON 46 630 2 ------------------------------------ -----------------------

COLIN POWELL 63 554 13 ---------------------------------- ---------------------------

ROSS PEROT ------------------------------- 36 665 65% -----------------------------------

DEAN BARKLEY ------------------------------ 41 246 64% -----------------------------------

ALLEN QUIST ------------------------------ ----------------------------------- 42 431 46%

TED MONDALE ----------------------------- ----------------------------------- 52 604 24%

MARK ANDREWS ---------------------------- ----------------------------------- 48 248 69%

MARK DAYTON ---------------------------- ----------------------------------- 50 536 33%

MIKE FREEMAN --------------------------- ----------------------------------- 50 345 54%

NORM COLEMAN --------------------------- ----------------------------------- 56 538 24%

DEAN JOHNSON --------------------------- ----------------------------------- 48 262 67%

ROY TERWILLINGER--------------------------- ---------------------------------- 48 208 74%

overall n=702 OVERALL N=704 OVERALL ALL N=824

[DON'T KNOW/CAN'T JUDGE EXCLUDED FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE MEAN]

1. - % THIS FIGURE REPRESENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID THEY COULDN'T JUDGE OR DIDN'T KNOW THE LISTED PERSON.

SCSU SURVEY "FEELING THERMOMETER" RESULTS

Here's a different kind of question. Please think of a thermometer that has a range of 0 to 100 degrees. Id like you to rate your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news. Ratings on the thermometer between 50 and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward the person. Ratings between 0 and 50 mean that you don't feel too favorable toward the person. If we come to a person whose name you don't recognize, you don't need to rate that person. Just tell me and we'll move on to the next one. If you do recognize the name, but don't feel particularly arm or cold toward the person, you would rate the person at the 50 degree mark.

10/97 % CAN’T JUDGE1

MEAN N DON’T KNOW DEMS. REPS. OUTSTATE 7 COUNTY METRO

HUBERT H.

HUMPHREY III 58 515 12% 65 51 59 57

ARNE CARLSON 53 564 4% 49 59 51 55

JOANNE BENSON 52 301 48% 49 55 52 51

PAUL

WELLSTONE 47 561 5% 62 30 47 47

BILL CLINTON 52 580 2% 68 34 52 53

ROD GRAMS 47 489 16% 43 56 49 45

NEWT GINGRICH 35 544 7% 26 52 36 34

ALLEN QUIST 42 302 44% 38 47 45 36

TED MONDALE 51 396 32% 54 46 51 50

MARK DAYTON 48 380 33% 53 43 49 48

MIKE FREEMAN 52 250 56% 56 45 52 52

NORM COLEMAN 59 375 35% 53 65 54 62

DEAN JOHNSON 50 194 60% 50 47 51 49

TIM PAWLENTY 47 113 78% 41 53 46 56

ROY TERWILLINGER 49 139 74% 44 51

overall n=602

[DON'T KNOW/CAN'T JUDGE EXCLUDED FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE MEAN]

1= % THIS FIGURE REPRESENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID THEY COULDN'T JUDGE OR DIDN'T KNOW THE LISTED PERSON.

SCSU SURVEY "FEELING THERMOMETER" RESULTS 12/99

Here's a different kind of question. Please think of a thermometer that has a range of 0 to 100 degrees. Id like you to rate your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news. Ratings on the thermometer between 50 and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward the person. Ratings between 0 and 50 mean that you don't feel too favorable toward the person. If we come to a person whose name you don't recognize, you don't need to rate that person. Just tell me and we'll move on to the next one. If you do recognize the name, but don't feel particularly arm or cold toward the person, you would rate the person at the 50 degree mark.

10/97		% CAN’T JUDGE	10/98		% CAN’T JUDGE	12/99		% CAN’T JUDGE
MEAN	N	DON’T KNOW	MEAN	N	DON’T KNOW	MEAN	N	DON’T KNOW

HUBERT H.

HUMPHREY III 58 515 12% 51 565 8

ARNE CARLSON 53 564 4% 57 595 5

JOANNE BENSON52 301 48%

PAUL

WELLSTONE 47 561 5% 50 578 5 50 545 4

BILL CLINTON 52 580 2% 46 613 1 45 596 .5

ROD GRAMS 47 489 16% 47 467 26 46 456 23

NEWT GINGRICH 35 544 7% 39 569 10

HILLARY CLINTON 57 605 1 47 581 1

ALLEN QUIST 42 302 44%

TED MONDALE 51 396 32%

MARK DAYTON 48 380 33%

MIKE FREEMAN 52 250 56%

NORM COLEMAN 59 375 35% 53 546 13 52 513 8

DEAN JOHNSON 50 194 60%

TIM PAWLENTY 47 113 78%

ROY TERWILLINGER 49 139 74%

JAMES GIBSON 48 90 84

S MILES 52 102 81

S KELLY 52 112 80

M CIRESI 47 118 74

D LILLEHAUG 52 175 69

T VENTURA 60 488 13

A GORE 49 593 5 47 568 2

J VENTURA 54 515 18 54 591 1

overall n=602 overall n=628 overall n =602

[DON'T KNOW/CAN'T JUDGE EXCLUDED FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE MEAN]

1= % THIS FIGURE REPRESENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID THEY COULDN'T JUDGE OR DIDN'T KNOW THE LISTED PERSON.

ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY SURVEY

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

DR. STEPHEN I. FRANK

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

319 BROWN HALL

320-255-4131

SFSURVEY@STCLOUDSTATE.EDU

DR. STEVEN C. WAGNER

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

318 BROWN HALL

320-654-5423

SWAGNER@STCLOUDSTATE.EDU

DR. MICHELLE KUKOLECA HAMMES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

315 BROWN HALL

320-255-4130

MHAMMES@STCLOUDSTATE.EDU

Drs. Frank, Wagner and Kukoleca hammes

are members of the Midwest Association of

Public Opinion Research (MAPOR) and the American Association of Public Opinion Research (aapor) and subscribe to the code of Ethics of the AAPOR.

SCSU SURVEY HOMEPAGE: HTTP://TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU/SCSUSURVEY

Go Back to Fall, 1999 Main Page

Go Back to SCSU Survey Main Page