Big Al Frankin

[jshuberg]

Technically, a senator isn't supposed to be a representative of the people, that's what your representative in the house is for. Senators are supposed to be a representative of the state government to the US legislature. However, with the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913 that changed the election of senators from the state legislatures to a popular vote of the people, senate candidates started pandering to the people (just like members of the house always did), rather than working on behalf of the state government. The passage of the 17th amendment was the beginning of the end for states rights, since senators began working directly for the people, and began ignoring their state governments who no longer held the power to elect them. This was also the beginning of the modern entitlement state, since both senators and members of the house now pander to the same people to get elected, making their promises (bribes) much more likely to be passed into law.

If there was one thing I could change in the federal government to try to "fix" things, it would be to repeal of the 17th amendment and return election of senators back to how the founders originally intended in the constitution. This would slowly return power back to the states, while at the same time bringing a voice of reason in national politics to say no to entitlements that the states can't afford.

[NMRMN]

I have always supported the Second Amendment rights of Minnesotans to own firearms for collection, protection, and sport. After the tragedy at Sandy Hook, I travelled across Minnesota to meet with constituents and hear their ideas about reducing gun violence. What I have learned is that we can honor Minnesota’s proud tradition of responsible gun ownership while taking some reasonable steps that will make our communities and our children safer.

really.

[NMRMN]

Technically, a senator isn't supposed to be a representative of the people, that's what your representative in the house is for. Senators are supposed to be a representative of the state government to the US legislature.

Does our state senate reflect this in any way?

[jshuberg]

It can vary from state to state, but I believe that both state senators and members of the MN house have always been elected by popular vote. However, prior to the 1960s senators were apportioned by county, regardless of the population size. People in the cities complained that they were being under-represented in the senate, and that the system favored rural counties. It was changed so that now senators represent a particular senate district based on population, and is redistricted during the census. There are exactly two members of the house for each senate district. The result is that urban centers have significantly more representation in state government than rural areas.

I think that this is also pretty lop-sided, and that senators should be apportioned by county and members of the house apportioned by population based districts in order to achieve a balance of interests across the state.

[sabre]

I've been writing to Frankin for a few years. He is now at least sending a form letter response - for quite a while he would ignore all emails. Must be nearing re-election and needs to at least acknowledge his constituents!


Sent via Tapatalk 2

[shooter115]

Yep. I received the exact same BSForm letter response today as well. God I hate that D bag.

[darkwolf45]

Technically, a senator isn't supposed to be a representative of the people, that's what your representative in the house is for. Senators are supposed to be a representative of the state government to the US legislature. However, with the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913 that changed the election of senators from the state legislatures to a popular vote of the people, senate candidates started pandering to the people (just like members of the house always did), rather than working on behalf of the state government. The passage of the 17th amendment was the beginning of the end for states rights, since senators began working directly for the people, and began ignoring their state governments who no longer held the power to elect them. This was also the beginning of the modern entitlement state, since both senators and members of the house now pander to the same people to get elected, making their promises (bribes) much more likely to be passed into law.

If there was one thing I could change in the federal government to try to "fix" things, it would be to repeal of the 17th amendment and return election of senators back to how the founders originally intended in the constitution. This would slowly return power back to the states, while at the same time bringing a voice of reason in national politics to say no to entitlements that the states can't afford.

If I remember correctly, there was a significant problem at the time of corrupted state and local governments that had become entrenched in their positions and the 17th amendment was a way to take that power away from corrupted senators and give it back to the people.

In any event, our biggest adversary is apathy. People dont care about their rights so long as they are bribed on the hot button issues they personally want. You cant fight the political class until the working class learns to stand up and tell them to f*** off.

[jshuberg]

If I remember correctly, there was a significant problem at the time of corrupted state and local governments that had become entrenched in their positions and the 17th amendment was a way to take that power away from corrupted senators and give it back to the people.

That's what the sales pitch was for the 17th amendment was. How true it actually was, or how big a problem it might have actually became is highly suspect. The people voted for the state legislature, the state legislature voted for US senator. If it went bad somehow, the people could simply have elected a different state legislature. State and local corruption problems shouldn't be solved at the federal level, especially where the scope of the solution is much larger than the problem, and the solution causes significantly more problems than the original ever did. They tried to cure a cold with cyanide.

The people were only intended to directly elect their representative in the US house, senators were elected by state legislatures, and the president elected by the states electors in the electoral college. This provided a balance of concerns across offices in the federal government. With the change of senators to popular vote, and the reality that the electoral college almost always reflects the popular vote, you have politicians in different offices all beholden to the same people to be elected, and so the death of the sovereign state and the birth of the entitlement state began.

Every system of government suffers from corruption and idiots in office. By establishing a separation of powers between the branches, and separation of concerns between offices, the founders created a system where the effects of corruption would be constrained by the structural organization of the government. With the passage of the 17th amendment they eliminated separation of concerns, allowing corruption to flourish, unchecked by any structural safeguards. We haven't found ourselves in the mess we're in just because of bad or corrupt politicians. We've found ourselves in this mess because we allowed them to change the rules that had previously kept the effects of corruption in check.

[darkwolf45]

Fair points. Truth be told, I would like us to go back to some of these older principals of elections. For instance, i think originally the intent was for the winner of a presidential race become president whereas the loser became vice president. I think this is preferable to how it is run now because its a road block to party politics.

[jimbob85]

I got the same form letter BS from him.

[kollector03]

I too have received the same form letters from Senator Franken. I've also met him in person and to be candid, he's ill equipped to carry a rational conversation with. I found him to be distasteful with how he addressed my daughter at a public function when he was running for election.

I'll vote against him every time because I personally cannot stand him or his position on critical issues.

[floydster]

Freaky Frank is nothing but a talking head--nothing less, nothing more.

Smokeyloads

[whiteox]

I don't agree with him but I do appreciate the fact that he finally came out and said what he wants to do. The response from other politicians I've written to have been almost completely non-committal.

The problem now is who is there in the state that can beat him in 2014?

I'm not seeing a lot of volunteers. I like the idea of Stanek but if his support comes from the Metro, it'll be tough to convince them not to vote for Franken.

Jason Davis is too caustic. He's got about as good a shot as Rush Limbaugh.

[Josh189]

Stanek for senate?

Stuffed Parrot for Senate?!

[wasfuzz]

Stanek for senate?

Not if you knew the real Stanek!, was allways quite full of himself when he sat on the MN POST Board(Peace Officer Standards Board) and still likes to throw his weight around, I trust him as much as a used car salesmen!