Electing the President: a new system

by

Kenneth Matinale

The 2008 primary and caucus circus has shown us that selecting nominees for president by the two major political parties is much worse than the electoral college system for the general election. I propose a simple fair system that combines the nominating and general elections.

The objective is for an American citizen to get forty percent of the votes cast. If two citizens get forty percent then obviously the one with the higher percent becomes president elect.

There would be at most three national elections. The first person to get forty percent becomes president elect. All elections may be one day, a weekend, a week, whatever. Voting would be online and the system could be used by states to elect members of the House or Senate at their discretion. Most states would use it for Congressional elections as it eliminates cost.

1. July 4 - Independence Day. What better time to start the process? The top four vote getters advance to the second round, unless of course someone gets forty percent and becomes president elect.

It is around the time of the first party convention. The Republican and Democratic parties swap having their conventions: one in July and the other in August. Since both are petrified to have the nominee actually selected at the convention this election would only be an improvement. The major parties can act before this to settle on a candidate to eliminate votes being splintered among multiple candidates and having all shutout of the next round. They can continue to jerk around with conventions, primaries, caususes, back room selections, ... However, people may vote for anyone. Third party candidates and those completely independent can receive votes. The major parties can be ignored. Ralph Nader and Mike Bloomberg would have a chance. An incumbent president might get the forty percent and end it.

2. Early September - Labor Day. The final four are on the ballot, although we could allow write-ins. Two will advance unless someone gets forty percent. Then it's over.

If the process were in place in 2008, the two finalists could be from the same party, say Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, eliminating John McCain and Mike Huckabee.

3. First week in November. This would be pretty much like what we have now but without the silly electoral college, winner take all nonsense.

Simple and fair. Easy to understand and implement.

Immigration: the solution

By Kenneth Matinale

May 16, 2006

1. Raise the minimum wage significantly and ENFORCE it.

2. Enact national health care for all U.S. citizens.

This is in addition to the obvious stuff:

1. deport illegal aliens and put them on the end of the line;
2. solve two problems at once by bringing our troops home from Iraq and have them protect the borders, especially along the wall that should be built between the U.S. and Mexico.

Yes, the United States Army, not the national guard, not the border patrol, should be used to protect the nation’s borders. That’s as basic as it gets when it comes to national security and defense. Change or remove any laws that may preclude this such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It would also be helpful to treat Mexico as an antagonist, not as an ally. Mexico has no incentive to stop the flow of its most disadvantaged citizens into the U.S. Stop pretending that it does and stop trying to not offend the Mexican ruling elite. How about a Radio Free Mexico program to incite the poor Mexicans to petition the Mexican government to address their grievances, rather than illegal aliens rallying in the U.S. Until the economic system in Mexico is changed, Mexicans will continue to flow into the U.S. Mexico has natural resources. It needs to distribute the wealth.

We also need a national database of all U.S. citizens and of all persons in the U.S. The president’s idea about an ID card for aliens only is a distraction as are all of the rest of his proposals on immigration. His only concern is to continue to allow his rich friends to exploit the aliens as cheap labor who have no rights.

The business people claim that they do not know if a worker is illegal. Sure they do. If the worker is willing to work for much less pay, that worker is illegal. Raise the pay and Americans will do the work. Have the government pay for health care and the business owners will not have that expense.

President Bush proposes an ID card but only for aliens, not for U.S. citizens. That won’t work. If a person states that he/she is a U.S. citizen, how will the employer know that the person is not lying? Will the employer request documentation? That will be fun. Americans have been conditioned to irrationally resist a national ID card or database with unexplained elliptical emotional metaphors such as 1984, black helicopters, Nazis, Communists, Waco. You name it. We currently rely on state drivers licenses. Great, national security based on the competence of the motor vehicle department. Times 50.

Bush basically indicates that the problem is that illegal aliens do not have papers. His solution is to give them papers. That’s no solution. That’s obfuscation.

Republican business owners are intrinsically opposed to illegal immigration. However, twenty years ago they realized that they had entered pig business heaven: cheap labor that they had only dreamed of. For them the current system of exploitation is better than slavery, which was one of many forms of cheap labor as were indentured servitude, serfdom, etc. As opposed to slavery, the business people do not need to house, feed, or clothe the illegal aliens; nor do they need to wait years for the young slaves to grow and become productive. They also do not need to buy slaves: no capital investment. They can get rid of them quickly and completely by contacting the border patrol to remove them, sometimes without even paying them. Of course employers do not pay social security, health care, workers compensation, etc. This system is an opiate for these Republican business people. They try to resist but they cannot. They are addicted. It trumps all their biases.

How about toughening and then enforcing the law against hiring illegal aliens? And add this: deport the employers along with the workers.

The Constitution needs to be amended in three ways.

Amendment XIV (14)

Section 1.

"All persons born ... in the United States ... are citizens of the United States"

This is being abused. Change it to require that at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen for the child to be a citizen.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Change person to citizen.

Section 2.

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons"

Change persons to citizens. This is the most fundamental mistake in the Constitution.

Later "inhabitants" should be changed to citizens.

The only way to remove the business advantage of hiring illegal aliens rather than American citizens is to:

1. Raise the minimum wage significantly and ENFORCE it.
2. Enact national health care for all U.S. citizens.

______________________________________________

Mass Transit


Sunday, November 18, 2001

President Bush and Senators Schumer and Clinton:

Please read “Connect the Connectors” (Mass Transit) by Alex Marshall, The New York Times Magazine, page 106, Sunday, November 11, 2001. The basic point is this.

“Last year, Washington lavished $12.5 billion on air travel, $33.4 billion on highways and a mere $520 million on Amtrak. This is a ridiculous imbalance, all the more so when you factor in the $15 billion that went to prop up the airlines after Sept. 11. It’s also dangerous. Relying so much on air travel is what military planners call a lack of necessary redundancy.”

Obviously, this could also mean less dependence on oil, especially foreign oil. Finally, it would reduce pollution and improve quality of life.

Kenneth Matinale

10 Stewart Place, 2CE
White Plains, NY 10603

Irag War

October 10, 2002

To: Senators Schumer, Clinton and Rep. Sue Kelly

CC: George Walker Bush

Vote NO on war.

CIA letter to Congress:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10INTE.html?todaysheadlines

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. against the United States," Mr. Tenet's letter read, referring to chemical and biological weapons. "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."

_______________________________________________________________

How many American lives are you willing to lose to accomplish what appear to be unnecessary and imprecise goals against Iraq? Against Syria? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Wouldn’t they be next?

The best way to reduce U.S. involvement in the middle east and vulnerability to terrorist attack is to reduce U.S. use of oil by conservation and development of alternate energy sources.

How many American lives is that oil worth? If we could save American lives by conserving energy, why shouldn’t we do it?

Show some backbone.

P.S. I was appalled that the president chose to address the nation about war, not from the oval office, but before a cheering partisan audience. Take him to task.

Pets are slaves
by
Kenneth Matinale

February 18, 2008

Free slave animals, a.k.a., pets. There is no euphemism applied to human slaves that cannot be applied to animal slaves. If you "own" a pet, you own a slave.

They have been subjected to breeding that results in dogs with horribly short legs, dogs that fight and attack, etc.

They are transported in cars in ways that would have the driver arrested if they were children: seated on the driver's lap (great air bag), with head hanging out the window (great for decapitation), unrestrained (no seat belt - what they cannot go flying?).

They are neutered.

Their young are taken away.

They are handled and played with as if they were toys.

Animals like all this? Perhaps some human slaves liked their treatment. It was still slavery. It is the natural order of things? White humans dominated blacks, men dominated women? That was the natural order, too, or so we thought.