# The Real Reason for the Electoral College?  Slavery



## GaryDog (Nov 14, 2016)

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states

In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. “And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)”

This pro-slavery compromise was not clear to everyone when the Constitution was adopted, but it was clearly evident to everyone when the Electoral College was amended after the Jefferson-Adams contest of 1796 and 1800. These elections were decided, in large part, by the extra electoral votes created by slavery. Without the 13 extra electoral votes created by Southern slavery, John Adams would've won even in 1800, and every federalist knows that after the election.

And yet when the Constitution is amended, the slavery bias is preserved.


----------



## The Great Goose (Nov 14, 2016)

This is totally Democrats.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 14, 2016)

Because..RACISM!

Shut the fuck up now.


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 14, 2016)

Not saying a vote for Trump was necessarily racist.  Just pointing out the origins of the EC.  If you take personal offense, that says a lot more about you.


----------



## tigerred59 (Nov 14, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
> 
> In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. “And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)”
> 
> ...


*Yet another reason to amend the Constitution....Old ideology that need a upgrade, starting with stupid white people shouldn't be allowed to vote*


----------



## westwall (Nov 14, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
> 
> In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. “And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)”
> 
> ...






Yeah, this is a BS meme that you progressives have been bleating for a few days now.  If you bother to actually READ the Federalist Papers it becomes patently clear that you, and your handlers are full of poo....  Here's a link to the relevant papers, and the historical overview from de Tocqueville.  Please be advised, these were EDUCATED men who wrote these letters.  There are BIG words in them.  Complex words.  Progressives like you seem to have a hard time understanding them.  Perhaps you should get some remedial ENGLISH education?  Just a thought.



The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -

The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 15


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 14, 2016)

1787. Year it was approved. In 1789 there were only 5 free states and 8 slave states. 

I'm not buying into this bullshit at all that the EC was designed for southern slave states considering slavery was still allowed in New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. 

File:US Slave Free 1789-1861.gif - Wikipedia


----------



## longknife (Nov 14, 2016)

Showing your ignorance, are we?


----------



## peach174 (Nov 14, 2016)

tinydancer said:


> 1787. Year it was approved. In 1789 there were only 5 free states and 8 slave states.
> 
> I'm not buying into this bullshit at all that the EC was designed for southern slave states considering slavery was still allowed in New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland.
> 
> File:US Slave Free 1789-1861.gif - Wikipedia



It's not.
It was designed for minority movements to have a chance, if we went to far left or right, in order to restore balance.
In this case the 70's movement went to far to the left and they were defeated.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 14, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Not saying a vote for Trump was necessarily racist.  Just pointing out the origins of the EC.  If you take personal offense, that says a lot more about you.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 14, 2016)

> But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections.



I am not sure who wrote this piece, but the three-fifths clause is in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. The presidential election and electoral votes are in Article II.  

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

There may be a roundabout way to attribute electoral votes by the number of districts, but that was too far in the distance and implausible.



> And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)”



The winner of the presidential race has nothing to do with where a candidate was from, but who and what states voted for the candidate. James Monroe, a Virginian, received 231 electoral votes and John Quincy Adams received 1. Monroe received 84% of the popular vote. Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian, received 162 electoral votes against 14 in 1804. Jefferson received 72% of the popular vote. He dominated in each state, big and small, north and south, other than Connecticut.  How did Virginia play into this?


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 15, 2016)

westwall said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
> ...



Perhaps you should read the words of James Madison himself:

Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote

In 1823, Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay explaining his views of the Electoral College, his strong opposition to states voting as winner-take-all blocs and his view of the origins of the winner-take-all rule. In addition to disenfranchising districts that voted against the preference of the state, Madison worried that statewide voting would increase sectionalism and the strength of geographic parties. He wrote that his views were widely shared by others at the Constitutional Convention, and that the winner-take-all approach had been forced on many states due to its adoption in other states: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [e.g., winner-take-all rule] & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example."


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 15, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> I am not sure who wrote this piece, but the three-fifths clause is in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. The presidential election and electoral votes are in Article II.
> 
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
> 
> There may be a roundabout way to attribute electoral votes by the number of districts, but that was too far in the distance and implausible.



Electoral votes are determined by each state's total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress.  Counting slaves (even as 3/5ths) affects that number, which in turn affects the electoral votes for president.  Thought this was pretty clear.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 15, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure who wrote this piece, but the three-fifths clause is in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. The presidential election and electoral votes are in Article II.
> ...



What was pretty clear? Do you think the Southern states had an advantage because of the 3/5s clause regarding electoral votes?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 15, 2016)

tinydancer said:


> 1787. Year it was approved. In 1789 there were only 5 free states and 8 slave states.
> 
> I'm not buying into this bullshit at all that the EC was designed for southern slave states considering slavery was still allowed in New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland.
> 
> File:US Slave Free 1789-1861.gif - Wikipedia


I imagine the Dems wanted to use their slaves to vote, and had to be stopped. Nothing has changed.


----------



## Silent Warrior (Nov 16, 2016)

Without the electoral college the sparsely populated states of the West and Midwest would have little say in the election of a president. Of course this is what the left desires. If we could just shut those pesky farmers up we in the cities could treat them like slaves and demand they feed us etc. How dare they think they are our equals.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
> 
> In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. “And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)”
> 
> ...


I cant believe how stupid this post actually is..... Hey genius Slave owning states had higher population then no slave owning states, The electoral college was put in place in part to minimize slavery. So please stop eating all the complete revisionist bullshit your regressive rag VOX spoon feeds you and actually read a non school history book or better yet some original documents.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 16, 2016)

Silent Warrior said:


> Without the electoral college the sparsely populated states of the West and Midwest would have little say in the election of a president. Of course this is what the left desires. If we could just shut those pesky farmers up we in the cities could treat them like slaves and demand they feed us etc. How dare they think they are our equals.


Yup.
As of right now the mainstream press is giving Google/Facebook/Twitter lists of "fake" news sites to delete, block, restrict. All right leaning.


----------



## xyz (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
> 
> In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. “And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)”
> 
> ...


That was one of the reasons, another reason was to keep total idiots with no qualifications from becoming president, by the electors denying cretins the presidency.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 16, 2016)




----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...



Of course they did.  They had black slaves (property) that could count as points for representation in Congress.  Meanwhile, that property cannot vote, and is subject to the whims of the owners.


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> View attachment 98723



Anything like this?


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > GaryDog said:
> ...



The numbers do not support that. The population of the southern states including 3/5s of the slaves was still a few thousand less than the other states. This had no affect on the southern states having an electoral vote advantage.


----------



## miketx (Nov 16, 2016)

tigerred59 said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
> ...


Hey black boy, go burn down a drug store, you got about 2 months.


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...



 I don't know what to say to that, except this must be your first experience with numbers.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > GaryDog said:
> ...



Do you want to break the numbers down to demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states?


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...



Uh, at the time of the constitutional convention, Virginia was the most populous state in the union, _*if you counted slaves.  *_Slaves represented half of the population.  Slaves were property.  Accordingly, human beings got MORE representation in congress if they owned slaves than if they didn't.

That is, without a doubt, a huge advantage (for the slaveowners.  Not so much for the slaves.)


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > GaryDog said:
> ...



That is not what I asked for to substantiate your claim that the numbers demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states. Can you provide the numbers that the southern states had an electoral advantage over the other states because of the 3/5s clause?


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...



What aren't you getting about this?  They had MORE representation than they had citizens.  Free states did not.  How is that not an advantage for slave states?  Did they have a plurality?  Is that what you think needs to happen before they have undue influence in Congress, and the EC?

Do you even follow politics at all?


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > GaryDog said:
> ...



You just justified one of the purposes of the electoral college. 

You are still avoiding my question regardless of your sophmoric ad hominem.


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...



I _*justified *_a purpose of the EC?

I'm not avoiding any of your questions.  I've answered it in full.  Right now I believe you have some sort of weird agenda with your questions, in our quest to justify the EC when it's eminently unfair as devised in 1787.  You realize slaves couldn't vote, right?  Therefore their masters got to use the existence of these slaves to improve their voice in congress (a voice which was devoted to keeping slaves enslaved).

In what way did the slave states NOT have an advantage, given these facts?


----------



## boedicca (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Not saying a vote for Trump was necessarily racist.  Just pointing out the origins of the EC.  If you take personal offense, that says a lot more about you.




blah blah blah...yawn so sleepy zzzzzzz


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

boedicca said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > Not saying a vote for Trump was necessarily racist.  Just pointing out the origins of the EC.  If you take personal offense, that says a lot more about you.
> ...



Then go sleep, you pathetic asshole.  Adults are talking.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > GaryDog said:
> ...




You're not an adult.  You're a whinging pajamaboi who is barking according to the Loser Prog Dog Whistle.

Nobody believes these ad nauseum accusations of RACISM anymore (except of course, for your fellow diehard moonbats).  You've worn out the "deplorable" categories by overusing them against anyone who doesn't agree with your political opinions.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > GaryDog said:
> ...



You have used one of the reasons for the electoral college. That is why the Constitution was ratified.

I am waiting for you to give me the number of whites in the southern states and the number of whites in the other states. Then calculate the number of slaves in each multiplied by .6 for congressional representation to 1800.


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...



I don't need to do that.  The link I provided in the OP did that calculation.  It's clear John Adams, for example, would've won the presidency if not for the 3/5ths clause and the EC in 1800.


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

boedicca said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



So let me get this straight: You don't think the slaveholders in 18th century America were racist?  Or for that matter, ALL of the founding fathers?

Or do you just not understand the point of the OP, and your knee jerks anytime ANYONE mentions race, because, you know, you're _actually_ racist?


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > GaryDog said:
> ...


 
 Nothing was broken down. 

Three problems: it is a Vox, it is Akhil Reed Amar, and you are using a proxy argument. 

You can either find the 1790 census and break it down as I specified or you cannot. It is that simple.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > GaryDog said:
> ...



The fallacy of _nunc pro tunc_ is not going to cut it.


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > Tennyson said:
> ...



Uh, the source is your problem?  Do you not have access to other sources?  This is common knowledge.  11th grade history.

Electoral College is 'vestige' of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars


Also, did you read the article?  It quoted JAMES MADISON HIMSELF.

Proxy argument?  lol!


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

Tennyson said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



I've not used any of the framers' racism to color Trump supporters.  I've made that very clear.  If the trump supporters are overly sensitive, that's not my fault, and it's certainly not the result of a fallacious argument. It's the result of a misunderstanding by Trump supporters, which stands to reason because most of them are idiots.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > GaryDog said:
> ...



Contextomy is not acceptable. 

You also did not quote James Madison. If you want to quote James Madison, you will need to cite where it came from and use the entire context. You actually found something someone said was a James Madison quote.


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

More specifically, states that limited suffrage in general opposed direct vote.  I.e. states that did not value universal suffrage also valued the electoral college.

Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Tennyson said:
> 
> 
> > GaryDog said:
> ...



What does Trump have to do with my statement?


----------



## GaryDog (Nov 16, 2016)

Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote

Madison's Proposed Amendment

In 1823, Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay explaining his views of the Electoral College, his strong opposition to states voting as winner-take-all blocs and his view of the origins of the winner-take-all rule. In addition to disenfranchising districts that voted against the preference of the state, Madison worried that statewide voting would increase sectionalism and the strength of geographic parties. He wrote that his views were widely shared by others at the Constitutional Convention, and that the winner-take-all approach had been forced on many states due to its adoption in other states: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [e.g., winner-take-all rule] & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example."






Madison also discerned that the winner-take-all rule did not actually help small states. When the Constitution was drafted, small states were expected to be helped by the law stating that each state has one vote for president when the election went to the House (as it had had in 1800 and would again in 1824, when John Quincy Adams was elected over the more popular Andrew Jackson). Many Founders anticipated that such outcomes would become routine - meaning the electors would limit the field to three choices that the House would choose among, voting on the basis of one vote per state. George Mason, for one, predicted in 1787 that "nineteen times in twenty" there would be no winner of a majority of electoral votes and the president would be chosen in the House.

Madison saw this provision as highly problematic, however: "The present rule of voting for President by the H. of Reps. is so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality, and even from the federal rule which qualifies the numerical by a State equality, and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate & best friends."


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> More specifically, states that limited suffrage in general opposed direct vote.  I.e. states that did not value universal suffrage also valued the electoral college.
> 
> Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote



I am not opening a commie anti-constitutional link to fair vote.


----------



## Tennyson (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote
> 
> Madison's Proposed Amendment
> 
> ...



That has nothing to do with the electoral colllege and the Constitution's intent was created by hundreds of people and Madison was one man. Selectively picking statements by one person at one point is not an argument.


----------



## The Great Goose (Nov 16, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> Because..RACISM!
> 
> Shut the fuck up now.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 16, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
> 
> In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. “And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)”
> 
> ...



That's silly.  The northern states consider slaves people, so they didn't want slaves in the south counted fully because it would give the slave states too much power while the slave states wanted them counted, leading to the 3/5 compromise.  Honestly, the history is shameful enough without you lying about it.


----------



## 12icer (Nov 17, 2016)

GaryDog said:


> Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote
> 
> Madison's Proposed Amendment
> 
> In 1823, Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay>>>>>>>>>Madison also discerned that the winner-take-all rule did not actually help small states.Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate & best friends."




And if you took the "Winner take all" from California, Illinois, and  the Large population HIGH ec count states, and made the EC vote as the districts of their actual voter blocks did you would get a REPUBLICAN President every time BECAUSE there are more House members that are Republican of course one would have to assume that the voters would vote the same Up ticket as down, and the district would be voted as a Republican elector. The electoral college being controlled by the states as for the Block system is what wins dimocrats the elections they have won, you ignorant libs are damn fools if you think using just popular will win for you as all it will do is bring out all of the center American voters to erase you.


----------

