Ken Krawchuck - Election Result: 0.98%

Party: Libertarian

Office: Governor

Ken Krawchuk, 64, was born and raised in the Feltonville section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He and his wife Roberta have lived in Abington since 1981, a Philadelphia suburb, and have three daughters and three grandchildren (so far). Mr. Krawchuk is an avid whitewater canoeist, year-round backpacker, and railroad enthusiast. He graduated with honors from Cardinal Dougherty High School in 1971, and in 1975 received a B.S. in Physics from St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. Additionally, Mr. Krawchuk is a graduate of the Abington Citizens’ Police Academy.
* All bios derived from candidates' websites.

Candidate Website    

Quiz Results

How the candidate answered on the issues

State and National

Do you support net neutrality?

Additional Comments: I do not support Net Neutrality because government should not be interfering in the free market. Virtually all goods and services are offered in an assortment of pricing and perk levels, including hotel rooms, rental cars, wedding receptions, and more, yet no one would lobby for hotel neutrality, car neutrality, or wedding neutrality. The best arbiter of resources is the free market, not politicians, bureaucrats, or special interests.
State and National

Should the minimum wage be raised?

Additional Comments: No, the minimum wage should not be raised. In general, the minimum wage cuts the bottom rungs off of the ladder to success. It reduces the number of entry-level jobs available thereby removing opportunities for the unemployed to learn new skills. It contributes to inflation by driving up wages and subsequently prices. Forcing businesses to overpay for skills results in fewer goods or services being produced, and lowers capital available for investing in growing an enterprise. For these and other reasons, the government should never interfere in the free market.
State and National

What is your view on Climate Change?

Additional Comments: Climate change is not a state issue; it’s more of a planetary thing, and therefore under federal and international guidance. There’s not much any governor could do. Regardless, my degree is in Physics, so I have a reasonable background to understand the arguments on both sides. To sum up, I believe the science is not yet settled. When I was in college, the prevailing scientific opinion was that we’re entering a new Ice Age. Today it’s the opposite. But what does the data say? Well, it’s been fudged. For example, they moved the monitoring station from the Coast Guard Station at Atlantic City to the airport, many miles inland, and noticed the temperature rose. Well, of course it would rise when moved inland. They tossed out many other measuring stations, too. Despite the fudging, there has been no appreciable warming since 1998. Looking beyond the Earth, the polar ice caps on Mars have been shrinking, and there’s a new storm on Jupiter, a mini Great Red Spot. These are signs of solar warming, not the result of SUVs. Regardless of whether the planet is currently warming or cooling, politically I would encourage the use of renewable resources. For example, there are companies that will install solar panels on your roof for free, and the electricity they generate is cheaper than you can get from the electric company. If we did this with all state buildings, we could save money and help the environment at the same time by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. (Disclaimer: I’m a shareholder in Philadelphia Electric, Tesla, Solar City, Exxon, and other energy companies.)
State and National

Regarding gun laws, what generally do you support from the choices below?

Additional Comments: We do not need more gun control. The national Center for Disease Control studied the issue and found no evidence that gun control laws reduce gun-related violence. They also found that guns were used defensively more often than used to commit a crime. In other words, guns save lives John Lott, a researcher at the University of Chicago, studied the same issues and came to the same conclusions. Further, he found that if a woman resists an attacker, she’s twice as likely to be seriously injured. But if she resists with a handgun, she’s half as likely to be seriously injured. In other words, handguns are a girl’s best friend. As governor, I promise to strongly defend our right to keep and bear arms, because gun control kills.
State and National

How should marijuana be regulated?

Additional Comments: Here are the top three reasons to defend our right to keep and bear plants by decriminalizing cannabis:. 1. The War on Drugs is racist. Although blacks and whites use cannabis at nearly identical rates, blacks in Pennsylvania are five times more likely than whites to be arrested for possession. 2. The War on Drugs is cruel. It’s been a year since medical cannabis was legalized in Pennsylvania, but it’s only available to those with certain government-approved diseases. Why are Democrats and Republicans persecuting sick people? 3. The War on Drugs is a menace to Society. Making cannabis illegal drives up the price, creating profits for organized crime. It fills our prisons with peaceful people. In fact, prisons are so overcrowded that they’re releasing murderers and rapists to make room for pot-smoking Grateful Dead fans. That’s Insane! When I’m elected governor, the War on Drugs will end in Pennsylvania. I promise on my first day in office to start the ball rolling to pardon all non-violent drug offenders. The police will quickly get the message they should stop wasting time and money.
State and National

Should the drawing of district lines be done by an independent system instead of state legislators?

Additional Comments: I strongly support reforming our redistricting process. Look at any map of political districts and you can plainly see that the legislature has failed horribly in its constitutionally-mandated task to create “election districts of compact and contiguous territory”. An independent redistricting commission would certainly be a step in the right direction, but there is a better, broader solution, not only to redistricting, but also to midnight pay raises, unfair ballot access, illegal gun grabs, and more. That solution would be to re-establish the “Council of Censors” created by Benjamin Franklin. The Council was composed of two citizens from each city and county whose role was to “censure” the legislators by vetoing legislation that was not in keeping with the constitution, calling constitutional conventions, even ordering impeachments. The Council was eliminated a few short months after Franklin’s death; it would honor Pennsylvania’s most famous citizen if it were re-established.

Were you (or would you have been) in support of the 2016 legislation regulating opioids in Pennsylvania (Act 122, Act 124, Act 125, Act 126)?

Additional Comments: Because they do not address the root causes of the opioid crisis, I do not support the 2016 Acts 122, 124, 125, or 126. Every two and a half hours, another Pennsylvanian dies from the Opioid Crisis. That’s heartbreaking! But we could reduce opioid use by 75% and opioid deaths by 85% by addressing root causes in the manner reported by the Portuguese Health Ministry. They achieved these startling results by implementing a rational drug policy starting in 2001, specifically, they ended their insane War on Drugs and decriminalized all drugs. Rather than treating drug use as a criminal issue, they treat it as a social issue. Virtually all opioid deaths stem from either a lack of quality control for street drugs, or from accidentally mixing an opioid with commonly available items like alcohol. To tackle these twin troubles, Portugal set up free drug purity testing centers and provides free social workers to dramatically reduce deaths and use, respectively. Their program also costs less than 1% of the cost of current drug programs in the U.S. per capita. As governor, I would work to implement the Portuguese model here in Pennsylvania and end all that needless death.
State and National

From the choices below, what best represents your view on the wages men and women are paid?

Additional Comments: Pay equity, comparable worth, and affirmative action are areas where the government should have no say at all, regardless of the goal. The Pennsylvania Constitution does not authorize any government action in that arena. The decision to hire any individual or what to pay them should only be made by private individuals and companies based on their own economic realities. The employment process consists of two people agreeing on what sort of salary package is acceptable to each of them. Once government steps in and dictates any portion of that process, one side or the other will surely be the loser—perhaps both. The only role of government is to protect the rights and property of the citizens, so I oppose any government intervention in private industry except in those areas related to public safety and criminal acts.

Regarding Pennsylvania pensions, were you (or would you have been) in favor of the 2017 Senate Bill 1 that introduces a 401K-style component into pension benefits for new hires after 2019?

Additional Comments: I would support 401(k) pensions for all state workers, except that it should apply to all pensioners, not only new hires. The pension crisis came about from ignoring the state constitution's ban on investing in stocks. State pensions should always have been 401(k) under control of the employees. We must recapitalize the pensions using only currently-available funds.

From the choices below, what best represents your view on property taxes?

Additional Comments: The worst of all taxes is the property tax. It's responsible for tossing seniors out of their homes, chiseling away at multi-generational homesteads, and erecting barriers to home ownership for first-time buyers. As governor, I would end property taxes.
State and National

From the choices below, what best represents your view on abortion?

Additional Comments: None of the above. Instead, I would make a small change to the abortion laws to allow for pre-natal adoption. That means if a woman does not want her unborn child, any individual or organization can step forward and adopt it, as well as taking responsibility for all medical costs related to delivery. Through the privacy of the doctor, the adopting parents can ask the woman to please bring the child to term. The woman can say “yes” or “no”—that’s pro-choice. If she says “yes”, we’ve just saved a baby—that’s pro-life. And since many babies are aborted for economic reasons, the number of abortions is guaranteed to decrease. More details about the approach are on my website at
Back to Candidates