©

click here if you do not wish to receive this publication   > NO <

This publication is dedicated to & maintained by those of us who really care about this city. We are many --- (and growing stronger with more people joining our ranks everyday). We are the nameless , faceless city, county, state, federal, and corporate taxpaying citizens & workers who are sick of the "good ole boy system" here in Houston, Texas --We were born on 7-30-1999. We are --- married & single-male & female, maintenance worker to Deputy Directors. We are the faceless civil servants who year after year do our job. We are the one's who see the hard earned tax $$s of the citizens in this area used & abused and given away to enrich a few greedy people with each new administration. Our hobbies include: Watching our backs---as we try to bring you the truth of what is happening in Houston, and getting the REAL information out to the public.

Everybody's talking about it...few understand it....here it is as taken from theAmerican History curriculum for all ages and schools (public, private, home)

 HOUSNITCH'S COMMENTS WILL BE IN RED DARLINS..... 

THIS IS AN EDITORIAL COMMENT  BASED ON HISTORY & DOCUMENTS TAKEN FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES....SO DON'T GET ALL UPSET THINKING WE HAVE CHANGED OUR POLICY OF REPORTING ON DOCUMENTS...AND REPORTING MISDEEDS BY OUR CITY OFFICIALS OR CONTRACTORS....THIS WEEK WE'RE JUST REPORTING ON ONE OF THE OLDEST DOCUMENTS AROUND AND GIVING YOU OUR COLLECTIVE THOUGHTS ON IT!!!!!!!

Yes this is what our children are taught ....so READ UP ON IT...then decide for yourself...

What is the Electoral college?

How does it work?

The President and the Vice President shall be chosen by the electors from each state. Each state will be entitled to the same number of electors as the sum total of its Representatives and Senators.

This provision gave each state the right to have the same weight in electing a President that it has in the legislative branch of Congress. There was a long and heated debate as to the manner in which the President should be elected. It was proposed that he be chosen by the Congress. Others thought that "electors" should be chosen by the people in each state and the electors should then choose the President. Still others thought it would be more appropriate if the governors of the various states made the selection. Even the Senate was proposed as the best means of selecting the national executive. Finally, there were a number who thought that the President should be selected by all of the voters throughout the nation. For a while it was the more popular view to have Congress select the President, and a resolution to that effect was actually passed. However, when the Constitution was finally drafted, the idea of using "electors" from each of the voting districts proved the more popular. It was feared that if Congress selected the President, he would be under the control of the national legislature, particularly if he were seeking its favor for a second term. On the other hand, the popular election of the people was rejected on the grounds that, as Alexander Hamilton said, it would invite "tumult and disorder." (ya think this hasn't?) 

It was therefore determined to elect the President by an indirect popular vote. In other words, each state would select some of its foremost people as "electors" (WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? WHAT MAKES THEM FOREMOST?) and these would then carefully and deliberately select the candidates for the high offices of President and Vice President. The next question was how many electors each state should be allowed and how they should be selected. It was finally decided to give each state the same number of electors as its delegation in Congress (Representatives plus Senators). This weighted the election of the President slightly in favor of the smaller states.

Originally there was a clause attached to this provision which has since been superseded by the Twelfth Amendment. Initially, it was intended that each elector would vote for two people. The candidate receiving the most votes became President, and the one receiving the second highest number of votes became Vice President. This entire procedure was set up on the assumption that there would be no political parties and that each state would submit the
best candidates it could provide. In other words, it was expected that there would be many candidates. The theory was good on paper but it did not work out in practice. In the first place, this procedure could saddle a President with a Vice President who might be of a completely opposite political philosophy.
This is precisely what happened in 1797 when John Adams, a Federalist, won the Presidency and Thomas Jefferson, an intense anti-Federalist, won the Vice
Presidency. Adams wanted a strong national government, Jefferson did not. Jefferson wanted an alliance with France, Adams did not. By 1800 these divergent political views had developed into opposing political factions, with each one supporting specific candidates for the office of both President and Vice President. However, since each elector was allowed to vote for two candidates, this automatically resulted in a tie for the two candidates sponsored by the majority party. In 1800 Jefferson, who was being sponsored by his supporters for President, tied with Aaron Burr, who was being supported for Vice President. Under the electoral system it was then necessary for the House of Representatives to break the tie. Thirty-six separate ballots were required before Jefferson was finally chosen over Burr. Aaron Burr then became the Vice President. It was obvious that the rise of political parties had completely frustrated the original procedure and that a new electoral system had to be devised. This resulted in the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804.The Twelfth Amendment provided that henceforth electors would prepare separate ballots, one for President and the other for Vice President. In order to obtain the electoral votes of a state, a party must carry that state. In other words, the electoral vote of a state is determined by the highest popular vote cast in that state.

Electoral System Likely to Raise Up Best Qualified Leaders and Avoid Tumult
of a Popular Election

Hamilton: "It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder...."The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives which, though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a
nature to mislead them from their duty." Another and no less important desideratum was that the executive should be independent for his continuance in the office on all but the people themselves.... This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice...." ( i DIDN'T GET TO DECIDE WHO MY ELECTORS WERE....DID YOU?) This process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low
intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence
of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."

Balance Ought to Be in Favor of Small States

Sherman: "If the legislature were to have the eventual appointment, instead of the Senate, it ought to vote in the case by the states -- in favor of the small states, as the large states would have so great an advantage in nominating the candidates."

( THE SMALLER POPULATED STATES ARE PREDOMINATELY ANGLO )

Williamson: "An election of the executive by the legislature ... opened a door for foreign influence. The principal objection against an election by the people seemed to be the disadvantage under which it would place the smaller states."

(AS WE STATED ABOVE, THE SMALLER STATES HOLD THE LEAST AMOUNT OF MINORITIES)

Who will decide how electors are chosen?

Spaight: "The President is elected for four years. By whom? By those who are elected in such manner as the state legislatures think proper."

Would It Be Better for the People to Choose the Electors?

Johnston: "Expressed doubts with respect to the persons by whom the electors were to be appointed. Some, he said, were of opinion that the people at large were to choose them, and others thought the state legislatures were to appoint them." 

Iredell: "Was of opinion that it could not be done with propriety by the state legislatures, because, as they were to direct the manner of appointing, a law would look very awkward, which should say, 'They gave the power of such appointments to themselves.'" 

MacLaine: "Thought the state legislatures might direct the electors to be chosen in what manner they thought proper, and they might direct it to be done by the people at large."

W. Davie: "Was of opinion, that it was left to the wisdom of the legislatures to direct their election in whatever manner they thought proper."

Would it be better to have the President chosen by the House or the Senate?

G. Morris: "Said he would give the reasons of the committee, and his own. The first was the danger of intrigue and faction, if the appointment should be made by the legislature. The next was the inconvenience of an ineligibility required by that mode in order to lessen its evils. The third was the difficulty of establishing a court of impeachments, other than the Senate, which would not be so proper for the trial, nor the other branch, for the impeachment of the President, if appointed by the legislature. In the fourth place, nobody had appeared to be satisfied with an appointment by the legislature. In the fifth place, many were anxious even for an immediate choice by the people. And finally, the sixth reason was the indispensable necessity of making the executive independent of the legislature."

Congressional Appointment of President Violates Separation of Powers

Madison: "If it be a fundamental principle of free government that the legislative, executive and judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same, and perhaps greater reason why the executive should be independent of the legislature than why the judiciary should. A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately and certainly dangerous to public liberty.
It is essential, then, that the appointment of the executive should either be drawn from some source or held by some tenure that will give him a free agency with regard to the legislature. This could not be if he was to be
appointable from time to time by the legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the first instance, even with an ineligibility afterwards, would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted."

Selection by the Congress Would Be the Worst Option

G. Morris: "Of all possible modes of appointment, that by legislature is the
worst. If the legislature is to appoint, and to impeach, or to influence the impeachment, the executive will be the mere creature of it."

Appointment by Congress Could Lead to Legislative Tyranny

G. Morris: "Opposed the election of the President by the legislature. He dwelt on the danger of rendering the executive uninterested in maintaining the rights of his station, as leading to legislative tyranny. If the legislature have the executive dependent on them, they can perpetuate and support their usurpations by the influence of the tax-gatherers and other officers, by fleets, armies, etc. Cabal and corruption are attached to that mode of election."

Use of Electors to Choose President Preferable to the Legislature Appointing
Him

Wilson: "To have the executive officers dependent upon the legislative, would
certainly be a violation of that principle, so necessary to preserve the freedom of republics, that the legislative and executive powers should be separate and independent. Would it have been proper that he should be appointed by the Senate? I apprehend that still stronger objections could be urged against that: cabal -- intrigue -- corruption -- every thing bad, would have been the necessary concomitant of every election."

What are the advantages of the electoral system of choosing a President?

Special Electors Best Qualified
(BETTER QUALIFIED THAN WHO?)

Hamilton: "The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system ... which has escaped without severe censure...."It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose ...."It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation.... (WHAT? WE THE PUBLIC AREN'T CAPABLE OF ANALYZING?) small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation  (CHOOSING WHO REPRESENTS THE GENERAL MASS SHOULDN'T BE LEFT TO THE GENERAL MASS?!!! WE DON'T POSSESS THE INFORMATION TO MAKE THIS JUDGMENT? WHAT KNOWLEDGE DO THE ELECTORS HAVE THAT YOU & I DON'T?) ...."Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any pre-existing bodies of men who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any
sinister bias. Their transient existence and their detached situation ...afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of
it."

Who should serve as electors?

Jay: "The convention ... have directed the President to be chosen by select bodies of electors to be deputed by the people for that express purpose....
This mode has ... vastly the advantage of election by the people in their collective capacity where the activity of party zeal, taking advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested, often places men in office by the votes of a small proportion of the electors." As the select assemblies for choosing the President ... will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens,( ARE THEY? ARE THE ELECTORS THE MOST ENLIGHTENED OF US? THE MOST RESPECTABLE?) there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence. The Constitution manifests very particular attention to this object.... As an assembly of select electors possess ... the means of
extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, (AGAIN...WHAT DO THE ELECTORS KNOW THAT YOU AND I DON'T?) so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment ...."The President ... so chosen will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interests, whether considered in relation to the several States or to foreign nations, who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence."
(WHEN I CAST MY VOTE, I BELIEVE MY CHOICE IS THE ONE WHO WILL BEST REPRESENT OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS AND THAT HE WILL BEST PROMOTE THOSE INTERESTS....WHO KNOWS HOW SOME "ELECTOR" THINKS?)

Why not elect the President and Vice President by a popular vote?

Gerry: "He was against a popular election. The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.... If he should be so elected, and should do his duty, he will be turned out foe it."
 ( HEY! WE HERE AT HOUSNITCH AREN'T UNIFORMED, AS A MATTER OF FACT...WE INFORM YA'LL AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON MANY TIMES!!!)

Public Easily Misled in Choosing a National Leader

(YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME, AND ALL THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME)

Gerry: "A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment."  

Mason: "It has been proposed that the election should be made by the people at large; that is, that an act which ought to be performed by those who know most of eminent characters and qualifications should be performed by those who know least."
(THE ABSOLUTE ARROGANCE OF OUR FOREFATHERS BLOWS US AWAY. BUT THEN AGAIN, AFRICAN AMERICANS WERE ONLY DEEMED 2/5TH OF A HUMAN BEING...SO IT REALLY COMES AS NO SURPRISE)

After considering all the options, which system seems preferable?

Madison: "There are objections against every mode that has been, or perhaps can be, proposed. The election must be made, either by some existing authority under the national or state constitutions -- or by some special authority derived from the people -- or by the people themselves. The two existing authorities under the national Constitution would be the legislative and judiciary. The latter he presumed was out of the question. The former was, in his judgment, liable to insuperable objections. Besides the general influence of that mode on the independence of the executive, in
the first place, the election of the chief magistrate would agitate and divide the legislature so much that the public interest would materially suffer by it. Public bodies are always apt to be thrown into contentions, but into more violent ones by such occasions than by any others. In the second place, the candidate would intrigue with the legislature; would derive his appointment from the predominant faction, and be apt to render his administration subservient to its views. In the third place, the ministers of foreign powers would have and would make use of the opportunity to mix their intrigues and influence with the election. Limited as the powers of the executive are, it will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe who have American possessions, to have at the head of our government a man attached to their respective politics and interests. No pains, nor perhaps expense, will be spared, to gain from the legislature an appointment favorable to their wishes.... The existing authorities in the states are the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The appointment of the national executive by the first was objectionable in many points of view, some of which had been already mentioned. He would mention one which of itself would decide his opinion. The legislatures of the states had betrayed a strong propensity to a variety of pernicious measures. One object of the national legislature was to control this propensity. One object of the national executive, so far as it would have a negative on the laws, was to control the national legislature, so far as it might be infected with a similar propensity. Refer the appointment of the national executive to the state legislatures, and this controlling purpose may be defeated. The legislatures can and will act with some kind of regular plan, and will promote the appointment of a man who will not oppose ... a favorite object. Should a majority of the legislatures, at the time of election, have the same object, or different objects of the same kind, the national executive would be rendered subservient to them. An appointment by the state executives was liable, among other objections, to this insuperable one, that being standing bodies, they could and would be courted, and intrigued with by the candidates, by their partisans, and by the ministers of foreign powers. The state judiciaries' had not been, and he presumed would not be, proposed as a proper source of appointment. The option before us, then, lay between an appointment by electors chosen by the people and an immediate appointment by the people. He thought the former mode ... greatly preferable to an appointment by the national legislature. As the electors people and an immediate appointment by the people. He thought the former mode ... greatly preferable to an appointment by the  national legislature. As the electors would be chosen for the occasion, would meet at once, and proceed immediately to an appointment, there would be very little opportunity for cabal or corruption .... The remaining mode was an election by the people....
He would only take notice of two difficulties.... The first arose from the disposition in the people to prefer a citizen of their own state and the disadvantage this would throw on the smaller states.... The second difficulty arose from the disproportion of qualified voters in the northern and southern states, and the disadvantages which this mode would throw on the latter."

Avoid Two Great Evils of Cabal and Foreign Influence

Butler: "The two great evils to be avoided are cabal at home and influence from abroad. It will be difficult to avoid either, if the election be made by the national legislature. On the other hand, the government should not be made so complex and unwieldy as to disgust the states. This would be the case if the election should be referred to the people. He liked best an election by electors chosen by the legislatures of the states."

Purpose of Electoral College Is to Have Electors Who Can Know and Judge the
Candidates

Wilson: "It gets rid of one great evil, that of cabal and corruption; and continental characters will multiply as we more and more coalesce, so as to enable the electors in every part of the Union to know and judge of them. "

WHEN WE CAST OUR VOTE.....WE KNEW OUR CANDIDATE, THAT'S NOT TO SAY EVERYONE KNEW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OR THAT ALL OF US HELD THE SAME AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE ... BUT WE HAVE A ONE MAN ... ONE VOTE SYSTEM ... IT SHOULDN'T BE DILUTED . IT'S TIME FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TO BE REEVALUATED... 

WE KNOW!!!! LET'S PUT IT TO A VOTE!!!!

This article was taken from The Making of America. To learn more about The Making of America click here.

 -  Last modified 10-16-00

Wanna see just how much you know about the Constitution? Download, this game...it's a fun way to learn & teach!

And here are some more links to read about our founding Fathers...the drafters & signers of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers

The Constitution of the United States

Biographies of Our Founding Fathers

HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING DARLINS!!!!

UP TO THE MINUTE TRAFFIC REPORTS

ACTIVE INCIDENTS  

ARCHIVEs

WE NEED YOUR HELP ... This is your page ..... help us keep it going ....BAD government is well funded .... the pursuit of good government isn't. ANY DONATION WILL HELP.... PLEASE ...... P.O. Box 55423 Houston, Texas 77255   713-722-9258

"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." 
-Albert Einstein

tell em what you think darlins, we get tired of telling  them by ourselves.......

CITY HALL

HOUSNITCH