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

[martybegan]

Go find yourself a pogrom, asshole.

They resort to calling names, as they have no intelligent reply in defense of their ignorance.

I give intelligent replies to intelligent posters. You get nothing but disdain and name calling, because that's all you deserve.

No you do not have an intelligent reply and that is why you call people names.

if you scan the body of my replies, there are plenty of intelligent replies. However, again, you don't deserve that courtesy, and NYcarbineer barely does, sometimes.

So fuck off you jew hating twat.

Get over yourself. You have no call to accuse me of not wanting to debate on the issues.

I can accuse you of whatever I want. Man up.

 

[Dale Smith]

 

[imawhosure]

Go find yourself a pogrom, asshole.

They resort to calling names, as they have no intelligent reply in defense of their ignorance.

I give intelligent replies to intelligent posters. You get nothing but disdain and name calling, because that's all you deserve.

No you do not have an intelligent reply and that is why you call people names.

if you scan the body of my replies, there are plenty of intelligent replies. However, again, you don't deserve that courtesy, and NYcarbineer barely does, sometimes.

So fuck off you jew hating twat.

Get over yourself. You have no call to accuse me of not wanting to debate on the issues.

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

The left can't even read their own links.

"For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College."

1. What link?
2. Nothing you're quoting contradicts anything I said.

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

Pure lie. Pure unadulterated lie.

Why does the agenda of the left always require you to lie? The electoral college was a given in order to keep a candidate from a large state from dominating the government.

Not to mention, the Carebear is playing loose with the truth.

The 3/5ths rules was put in because of the Southern attitude, to wit---------->how can a human be considered a slave, property, and unable to vote, but have a vote?!?!?!

Hey Carebear, do you realize that if that 3/5ths rule was not instituted, the North would not have had the power to end slavery because they would have had MORE CONGRESSIONAL districts, thus control of the house! Wake up you damn fool! You are for all intensive purposes, arguing AGAINST the policy that led to being able to free the slaves, all in an effort to bolster Hitlery. Nothing like being a youthful clown and demanding instant gratification by throwing everything under the bus, including the constitution, now is there. No Damn wonder we call you Carebear!

 

[paperview]

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

The left can't even read their own links.

"For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College."

1. What link?
2. Nothing you're quoting contradicts anything I said.

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

Pure lie. Pure unadulterated lie.

Why does the agenda of the left always require you to lie? The electoral college was a given in order to keep a candidate from a large state from dominating the government.

And to protect slaveholder interests.

Slaveholders had greater power -- because they were counting property as fucking -- human chattel with no representation - as representation.

It was a dirty compromise because the southern conservatives would not have joined the union if they didn't have their human bondage protected.

And for the almost the entire first quarter of this country, the southern slaveowners dominated not only congress, but the presidency.

 

[martybegan]

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

The left can't even read their own links.

"For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College."

1. What link?
2. Nothing you're quoting contradicts anything I said.

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

Pure lie. Pure unadulterated lie.

Why does the agenda of the left always require you to lie? The electoral college was a given in order to keep a candidate from a large state from dominating the government.

And to protect slaveholder interests.

Slaveholders had greater power -- because they were counting property as fucking -- human chattel with no representation - as representation.

It was a dirty compromise because the southern conservatives would not have joined the union if they didn't have their human bondage protected.

And for the almost the entire first quarter of this country, the southern slaveowners dominated not only congress, but the presidency.

During the early part of that time, the population split was far more balanced than it is now, or even in the period leading up to the Civil War.

The North's population gain really only started with immigration at the cusp of industrialization.

 

[paperview]

 

[paperview]

The 3/5th clause was about reapportionment.

The North did not want the slaves counted - because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted for reapportionment, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote or to actually have representation.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

It was a compromise - because the southerners said they would not ratify the Constitution if they could not give their slave property at least 3/5ths representation in Congress.

Without giving them representation. They used their slaves as hostages to the negotiation.

The deal was done, then the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history.

And this: Every single president, with the exception of two (from the North, the Adams') until 1850 - was a slaveowner.

 

[skookerasbil]

View attachment 102757

Oh man......that is classic.....better even than my bumpy cucumber!!!

Top story on DRUDGE right now!!


Members of Electoral College set to make Trump official...

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round.

After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency."

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares about the slaves.........that was 7,000 years ago!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Hey Carebear, do you realize that if that 3/5ths rule was not instituted, the North would not have had the power to end slavery because they would have had MORE CONGRESSIONAL districts, thus control of the house! !

Does the above make any sense to anybody?

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

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 3/5 in the Constitution was a compromise. The Southerners wanted to count slaves as a person while at the same time claiming they were property. Anti-slavery factions in the North said they couldn't have it both ways. Thence 3/5 was added to the Constitution as a compromise.

Southern states wanted slaves to be counted as property because of property taxes. As slaves aged they could use that to depreciate they property value. At the same time they wanted to count saves as people was that it gave them a higher population and therefore allowed them more seats in Congress.

Even with the 3/5 Compromise, Southern states still had an advantage in Congress until the Thirteen Amendment at the end of the Civil War, that made the Compromise obsolete.

Northern abolitionists also knew that with their higher population, counting a slave as a person, Southern states could dominate a Residential Election and could vote in pro-slavery Presidents.

The Electoral College was also a compromise to give smaller states a voice in a Presidential election, and to help combat the Southern states higher populations. The Founders knew that a minor number of high population states could dominate an election, and wanted the President elected by the entire country, not by 2 or 3 states alone.
(O'Connor, Sabato, and Yanus. American Government: Roots and Reform. 12th ed. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc., 2015. Print.)

So, your statement s semi-accurate. Yes, the Electoral College and the 3/5 Compromise had something to do with slavery, but not about being pro-slavery as you infer.

 

[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.

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

The left can't even read their own links.

"For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College."

1. What link?
2. Nothing you're quoting contradicts anything I said.

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

Pure lie. Pure unadulterated lie.

Why does the agenda of the left always require you to lie? The electoral college was a given in order to keep a candidate from a large state from dominating the government.

The electoral college gave Virginia, the largest state at the time, even MORE power.

 

[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

The left can't even read their own links.

"For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College."

1. What link?
2. Nothing you're quoting contradicts anything I said.

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

Pure lie. Pure unadulterated lie.

Why does the agenda of the left always require you to lie? The electoral college was a given in order to keep a candidate from a large state from dominating the government.

You just posted proof!

Two posts later and you don't believe it anymore?

 

[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.

Your lies mean nothing. Go away little girl.

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

The 3/5 in the Constitution was a compromise. The Southerners wanted to count slaves as a person while at the same time claiming they were property. Anti-slavery factions in the North said they couldn't have it both ways. Thence 3/5 was added to the Constitution as a compromise.

Southern states wanted slaves to be counted as property because of property taxes. As slaves aged they could use that to depreciate they property value. At the same time they wanted to count saves as people was that it gave them a higher population and therefore allowed them more seats in Congress.

Even with the 3/5 Compromise, Southern states still had an advantage in Congress until the Thirteen Amendment at the end of the Civil War, that made the Compromise obsolete.

Northern abolitionists also knew that with their higher population, counting a slave as a person, Southern states could dominate a Residential Election and could vote in pro-slavery Presidents.

The Electoral College was also a compromise to give smaller states a voice in a Presidential election, and to help combat the Southern states higher populations. The Founders knew that a minor number of high population states could dominate an election, and wanted the President elected by the entire country, not by 2 or 3 states alone.
(O'Connor, Sabato, and Yanus. American Government: Roots and Reform. 12th ed. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc., 2015. Print.)

So, your statement s semi-accurate. Yes, the Electoral College and the 3/5 Compromise had something to do with slavery, but not about being pro-slavery as you infer.

If your version were true they would have never counted any slaves.

 

[Rambunctious]

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.

I'm sure that is the way the story is told in public schools but it's wrong. The smaller states didn't want to be ruled by larger more populated states. The founders knew this and they knew the smaller states which were mostly located in the south would not vote to ratify if they didn't do something to get them on board. So they came up with a brilliant idea...the electoral college. Not sure where you got the slavery stuff but it's wrong. Slavery and indentured servitude was widely practiced in the days of the signing of the constitution. Slavery had nothing to do with the electoral college.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

They resort to calling names, as they have no intelligent reply in defense of their ignorance.

Says the moron that just called people deplorables.....really?

Not just people, but a quarter of all voting Americans.

Actually, Trump won with around 25% of registered voters. Clinton claimed half his supporters were deplorables. So we're really only talking about 12%. Not a quarter.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

The left can't even read their own links.

"For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College."

1. What link?
2. Nothing you're quoting contradicts anything I said.

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

Pure lie. Pure unadulterated lie.

Why does the agenda of the left always require you to lie? The electoral college was a given in order to keep a candidate from a large state from dominating the government.

You just posted proof!

Two posts later and you don't believe it anymore?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

3/5 rule and the electoral college - Google Search

The left can't even read their own links.

"For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College."

1. What link?
2. Nothing you're quoting contradicts anything I said.

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

Pure lie. Pure unadulterated lie.

Why does the agenda of the left always require you to lie? The electoral college was a given in order to keep a candidate from a large state from dominating the government.

You just posted proof!

Two posts later and you don't believe it anymore?

It's all in those fancy boxes above. Simply open them and see. Everyone else will and then laugh at you.

 

[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.

Your lies mean nothing. Go away little girl.

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

The 3/5 in the Constitution was a compromise. The Southerners wanted to count slaves as a person while at the same time claiming they were property. Anti-slavery factions in the North said they couldn't have it both ways. Thence 3/5 was added to the Constitution as a compromise.

Southern states wanted slaves to be counted as property because of property taxes. As slaves aged they could use that to depreciate they property value. At the same time they wanted to count saves as people was that it gave them a higher population and therefore allowed them more seats in Congress.

Even with the 3/5 Compromise, Southern states still had an advantage in Congress until the Thirteen Amendment at the end of the Civil War, that made the Compromise obsolete.

Northern abolitionists also knew that with their higher population, counting a slave as a person, Southern states could dominate a Residential Election and could vote in pro-slavery Presidents.

The Electoral College was also a compromise to give smaller states a voice in a Presidential election, and to help combat the Southern states higher populations. The Founders knew that a minor number of high population states could dominate an election, and wanted the President elected by the entire country, not by 2 or 3 states alone.
(O'Connor, Sabato, and Yanus. American Government: Roots and Reform. 12th ed. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc., 2015. Print.)

So, your statement s semi-accurate. Yes, the Electoral College and the 3/5 Compromise had something to do with slavery, but not about being pro-slavery as you infer.

"At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count."

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists