The real reason we have an electoral college instead of using the popular vote

[Divine Wind]

Proof of what? That slaves were counted 3/5ths towards congressional representation? That slaves couldn't vote?

What do you need proof of?

That there is a direct link between the 3/5ths clause and the EC. That without the 3/5ths clause, there'd have been no EC.

Take your time. I can wait.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

The southern states actually wanted slaves to count as full people, so no, they did not entirely get their way.

The fight over congressional representation and who gets to elect the president were two different arguments.

Wrong. The 3/5ths compromise gave a state like Virginia a boost of about 175,000 in population to be counted towards determining the number of House Representatives Virginia got.

Slaves counted as a full person would have given them more.


Guide to the Constitution

"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."

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3

Nor was the three-fifths rule new at the Convention. It was derived from a mechanism adopted in 1783 to apportion requisitions (the national government's only revenue source under the Articles of Confederation) among the states. That rule was intended to provide rough equality between the North and the South, and when the idea first appeared at the Convention, no one suggested that another fraction would be more appropriate. Indeed, the rule was included in a June 11 motion, made by James Wilson of Pennsylvania and seconded by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, suggesting that a compromise had already occurred behind the scenes.

 

[the_human_being]

Whatever the reason, it is a good thing. Three Liberal counties in California should not be allowed to choose the President of the United States.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

shit s0n......you're still consumed with this shit?

Time to go out and find a hobby. I remember in 2008, it sucked the big one with Soetero won. Like many others who were disappointed, you just go find something else so as not to be miserable. Life goes on........work on removing that bumpy cucumber asap. You can thank me later. Only a handful of people care about this 43 days out of the inauguration. Take some baking classes......try some MMA.........build some models of Trump and throw firecrackers at it. Just do something besides displaying to the world how miserable you are.......who does that?

 

[Ringel05]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

Welp, looks like anyone can fall for revisionist bull shit if says what the want it ti say. Way to go knumb knuts.

 

[Divine Wind]

Whatever the reason, it is a good thing. Three Liberal counties in California should not be allowed to choose the President of the United States.

Agreed. Just additional proof "modern liberals" are more about socialist totalitarians and less about supporting our republic's Constitution.

This thread is just another liberal's attempt to further undermine our Constitution with a bald faced lie.

 

[Kosh]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

As always the far left drones are wrong!

Post your proof and support your debunked religious dogma.

Silly far left drone!

Proof of what? That slaves were counted 3/5ths towards congressional representation? That slaves couldn't vote?

What do you need proof of?

See how the far left will make debunked religious dogma statements and have no proof in reality of what they post?

This drone is only interested in being top posting drone of the month!

 

[martybegan]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

The southern states actually wanted slaves to count as full people, so no, they did not entirely get their way.

The fight over congressional representation and who gets to elect the president were two different arguments.

Wrong. The 3/5ths compromise gave a state like Virginia a boost of about 175,000 in population to be counted towards determining the number of House Representatives Virginia got.

Yes and while it did give them an elector boost, the real fight over presidential elections was between popular vote, the EC (the compromise) and selection by State vote via the state legislatures.

 

[Auld Phart]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

The southern states actually wanted slaves to count as full people, so no, they did not entirely get their way.

The fight over congressional representation and who gets to elect the president were two different arguments.

Wrong. The 3/5ths compromise gave a state like Virginia a boost of about 175,000 in population to be counted towards determining the number of House Representatives Virginia got.

Yes and while it did give them an elector boost, the real fight over presidential elections was between popular vote, the EC (the compromise) and selection by State vote via the state legislatures.

You're going to confuse him even more

 

[Divine Wind]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

shit s0n......you're still consumed with this shit?

Time to go out and find a hobby. I remember in 2008, it sucked the big one with Soetero won. Like many others who were disappointed, you just go find something else so as not to be miserable. Life goes on........work on removing that bumpy cucumber asap. You can thank me later. Only a handful of people care about this 43 days out of the inauguration. Take some baking classes......try some MMA.........build some models of Trump and throw firecrackers at it. Just do something besides displaying to the world how miserable you are.......who does that?

A hobby or models of Trump are great ideas. Maybe we should get together and sell Trump pinatas to liberals. We'd make tons of cash! Sticks extra, of course.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

Your lies mean nothing. Go away little girl.

See how angry they get when they are confronted with the truth.

The lack of self awareness of the left is mind boggling.

What am I lying about?

Your op is a lie, it is nothing but your racist speculation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

The southern states actually wanted slaves to count as full people, so no, they did not entirely get their way.

The fight over congressional representation and who gets to elect the president were two different arguments.

Wrong. The 3/5ths compromise gave a state like Virginia a boost of about 175,000 in population to be counted towards determining the number of House Representatives Virginia got.

Yes and while it did give them an elector boost, the real fight over presidential elections was between popular vote, the EC (the compromise) and selection by State vote via the state legislatures.

Jefferson's win in 1800 depended on the extra electors that the slave states had because they had so many slaves.

 

[Penelope]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

The southern states actually wanted slaves to count as full people, so no, they did not entirely get their way.

The fight over congressional representation and who gets to elect the president were two different arguments.

Wrong. The 3/5ths compromise gave a state like Virginia a boost of about 175,000 in population to be counted towards determining the number of House Representatives Virginia got.

Yes and while it did give them an elector boost, the real fight over presidential elections was between popular vote, the EC (the compromise) and selection by State vote via the state legislatures.

Jefferson's win in 1800 depended on the extra electors that the slave states had because they had so many slaves.

Your right, the deplorables never admit to being wrong which they usually are. Thank you for bringing this up.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

The southern states actually wanted slaves to count as full people, so no, they did not entirely get their way.

The fight over congressional representation and who gets to elect the president were two different arguments.

Wrong. The 3/5ths compromise gave a state like Virginia a boost of about 175,000 in population to be counted towards determining the number of House Representatives Virginia got.

Yes and while it did give them an elector boost, the real fight over presidential elections was between popular vote, the EC (the compromise) and selection by State vote via the state legislatures.

Jefferson's win in 1800 depended on the extra electors that the slave states had because they had so many slaves.

in 1800 Northern states also mostly still had slaves, but not as many as the South. and the real population shift to the north did not really occur until the 1840's, which was one of the main catalysts of the Civil War.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

The southern states actually wanted slaves to count as full people, so no, they did not entirely get their way.

The fight over congressional representation and who gets to elect the president were two different arguments.

Wrong. The 3/5ths compromise gave a state like Virginia a boost of about 175,000 in population to be counted towards determining the number of House Representatives Virginia got.

Yes and while it did give them an elector boost, the real fight over presidential elections was between popular vote, the EC (the compromise) and selection by State vote via the state legislatures.

Jefferson's win in 1800 depended on the extra electors that the slave states had because they had so many slaves.

Your right, the deplorables never admit to being wrong which they usually are. Thank you for bringing this up.

Go find yourself a pogrom, asshole.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

The southern states actually wanted slaves to count as full people, so no, they did not entirely get their way.

The fight over congressional representation and who gets to elect the president were two different arguments.

Wrong. The 3/5ths compromise gave a state like Virginia a boost of about 175,000 in population to be counted towards determining the number of House Representatives Virginia got.

And by extension, electors.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

Can you please provide links to your research that this was the founders reasoning? Or perhaps this is just another typical liberal rant in which you employ racism to explain anything that doesn't go your way.

 

[HenryBHough]

The fixation on racial pandering has reached acute status.

The perfect gift for your liberal friends in this holiday season? A new deck of race cards. Their old ones are wearing thin.

But please do not use any wrapping paper or tags with "Christmas" themes if the party is at your house. You don't want the Axminster soiled with vomit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

Can you please provide links to your research that this was the founders reasoning? Or perhaps this is just another typical liberal rant in which you employ racism to explain anything that doesn't go your way.

3/5 rule and the electoral college - Google Search

 

[Rustic]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

It's obvious you're butt hurt… LOL