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

[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.

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.

Virginia was the biggest beneficiary of the electoral college system. It was also the biggest state.

I don't think they can grasp their head around this.

Virginia, as you say, was the largest state, with a total population of 747,550 - of which 39% were slaves - North Carolina (395,005) was third - of which 26% were slaves.

Again, for those who missed it:

So, you're say that reducing the slave population by 2/5 in determining seats in Congress for slave states was was to HELP(?) those states? The slaves states were counting slaves as a whole person prior to the 3/5 Compromise!

You must have not done well in math to not know that 3/5 is less than 1.

One purpose in the 3/5 Compromise was to reduce the slaves states population, thereby allowing fewer seats in Congress, with the end result of giving them LESS power!

It was BAD for the states, GOOD for the country, and was a step toward abolishing slavery.

And that is a fact, like it or not.

Edit: Sorry, paperview, but from your post I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with cabineer. But, regardless, this is still applicable to the thread topic.

 

[Divine Wind]

The original claim was half of America. I simply corrected that.

The original claim by whom? Cite the post you are correcting, please.

The one I responded to. Obviously.

This one?:

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

Read it again, champ. Not all registered voters were voting Americans.

 

[Divine Wind]

Virginia's slave population in 1790 was 292,000. At 3/5ths, that was worth 175,000 towards calculating Virginia's house members, and thus calculating Virginia's power in the electoral college.

You can compare that to Maine, with 96,000 people, no slaves. No bonus electors.

Great! Do you understand the Constitution would never have been ratified without the 3/5ths Clause? Do you understand the EC was about state populations, not slave states vs. free states? Certainly there was the 3/5ths "compromise", but the EC idea was already in progress before the idea of the 3/5ths compromise came up.

 

[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.

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.

Virginia was the biggest beneficiary of the electoral college system. It was also the biggest state.

I don't think they can grasp their head around this.

Virginia, as you say, was the largest state, with a total population of 747,550 - of which 39% were slaves - North Carolina (395,005) was third - of which 26% were slaves.

Again, for those who missed it:

So, you're say that reducing the save population by 2/5 in determining seats in Congress for slave states was was to HELP(?) those states? The slaves states were counting slaves as a whole person prior to the 3/5 Compromise!

You must have not done well in math to not know that 3/5 is less than 1.

One purpose in the 3/5 Compromise was to reduce the slaves states population, thereby allowing fewer seats in Congress, with the end result of giving them LESS power!

It was BAD for the states, GOOD for the country, an was a step toward abolishing slavery.

And that is a fact, like it or not.

They weren't counted at all prior to the compromise, dope.

 

[imawhosure]

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.

Virginia was the biggest beneficiary of the electoral college system. It was also the biggest state.

I don't think they can grasp their head around this.

Virginia, as you say, was the largest state, with a total population of 747,550 - of which 39% were slaves - North Carolina (395,005) was third - of which 26% were slaves.

Again, for those who missed it:

So, you're say that reducing the save population by 2/5 in determining seats in Congress for slave states was was to HELP(?) those states? The slaves states were counting slaves as a whole person prior to the 3/5 Compromise!

You must have not done well in math to not know that 3/5 is less than 1.

One purpose in the 3/5 Compromise was to reduce the slaves states population, thereby allowing fewer seats in Congress, with the end result of giving them LESS power!

It was BAD for the states, GOOD for the country, an was a step toward abolishing slavery.

And that is a fact, like it or not.

This is exactly what I was trying to explain to CAREBEAR, and his pal, Starsky and Hutch. They didn't get it, so why even try. They are either a product of their own brainwashing, or they are a product of failed public schools. In either case, no reason to keep beating our heads against the wall, we have 2 years before ever having to worry about their illogical thought processes might have an effect on anything the Federal government does-)

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The original claim was half of America. I simply corrected that.

The original claim by whom? Cite the post you are correcting, please.

The one I responded to. Obviously.

This one?:

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

Read it again, champ. Not all registered voters were voting Americans.

I updated my post.
It's still only half of that and not worth arguing over. I get your point.

 

[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.

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.

Virginia was the biggest beneficiary of the electoral college system. It was also the biggest state.

I don't think they can grasp their head around this.

Virginia, as you say, was the largest state, with a total population of 747,550 - of which 39% were slaves - North Carolina (395,005) was third - of which 26% were slaves.

Again, for those who missed it:

So, you're say that reducing the save population by 2/5 in determining seats in Congress for slave states was was to HELP(?) those states? The slaves states were counting slaves as a whole person prior to the 3/5 Compromise!

You must have not done well in math to not know that 3/5 is less than 1.

One purpose in the 3/5 Compromise was to reduce the slaves states population, thereby allowing fewer seats in Congress, with the end result of giving them LESS power!

It was BAD for the states, GOOD for the country, an was a step toward abolishing slavery.

And that is a fact, like it or not.

This is exactly what I was trying to explain to CAREBEAR, and his pal, Starsky and Hutch. They didn't get it, so why even try. They are either a product of their own brainwashing, or they are a product of failed public schools. In either case, no reason to keep beating our heads against the wall, we have 2 years before ever having to worry about their illogical thought processes might have an effect on anything the Federal government does-)

Were they counted at all prior to the compromise, professor?

 

[Divine Wind]

They weren't counted at all prior to the compromise, dope.

Correct, and a sticking point to ratification. Do you understand that without the compromise, the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Virginia's slave population in 1790 was 292,000. At 3/5ths, that was worth 175,000 towards calculating Virginia's house members, and thus calculating Virginia's power in the electoral college.

You can compare that to Maine, with 96,000 people, no slaves. No bonus electors.

Great! Do you understand the Constitution would never have been ratified without the 3/5ths Clause? Do you understand the EC was about state populations, not slave states vs. free states? Certainly there was the 3/5ths "compromise", but the EC idea was already in progress before the idea of the 3/5ths compromise came up.

These idiots keep saying it was all about helping the small states, but the states helped the most were the slave states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They weren't counted at all prior to the compromise, dope.

Correct, and a sticking point to ratification. Do you understand that without the compromise, the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified?

So tell your pals to quit spouting off about the electoral college being an exercise in lofty thinking by the framers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They weren't counted at all prior to the compromise, dope.

Correct, and a sticking point to ratification. Do you understand that without the compromise, the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified?

I do indeed. It was a compromise to appease the slave states so they would join the union.It also gave them quite a lot of power disproportionally to their voting population.
If not for slavery, it would not have been necessary. At least not in the form it is now.
A good reason to revisit it.

 

[Divine Wind]

I updated my post.
It's still only half of that and not worth arguing over. I get your point.

Were we once married? You sound like my ex-wife. "I changed my answer. I get your point but you're still wrong". WTF?

 

[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.

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.

Virginia was the biggest beneficiary of the electoral college system. It was also the biggest state.

I don't think they can grasp their head around this.

Virginia, as you say, was the largest state, with a total population of 747,550 - of which 39% were slaves - North Carolina (395,005) was third - of which 26% were slaves.

Again, for those who missed it:

So, you're say that reducing the save population by 2/5 in determining seats in Congress for slave states was was to HELP(?) those states? The slaves states were counting slaves as a whole person prior to the 3/5 Compromise!

You must have not done well in math to not know that 3/5 is less than 1.

One purpose in the 3/5 Compromise was to reduce the slaves states population, thereby allowing fewer seats in Congress, with the end result of giving them LESS power!

It was BAD for the states, GOOD for the country, an was a step toward abolishing slavery.

And that is a fact, like it or not.

This is exactly what I was trying to explain to CAREBEAR, and his pal, Starsky and Hutch. They didn't get it, so why even try. They are either a product of their own brainwashing, or they are a product of failed public schools. In either case, no reason to keep beating our heads against the wall, we have 2 years before ever having to worry about their illogical thought processes might have an effect on anything the Federal government does-)

Slaves were property, so they shouldn't have been counted as people AT ALL. You can't have it both ways, unless of course someone caves in and gives you 3/5ths of a person status for each of your slave properties.

More from my link:

"in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.”

 

[Divine Wind]

So tell your pals to quit spouting off about the electoral college being an exercise in lofty thinking by the framers.

Are you still refusing to admit that the drafting of the Constitution required several compromises, one of which was the EC? Another the 3/5's compromise? Without those compromises, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?
The founding fathers established it in theConstitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

 

[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.

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.

Virginia was the biggest beneficiary of the electoral college system. It was also the biggest state.

I don't think they can grasp their head around this.

Virginia, as you say, was the largest state, with a total population of 747,550 - of which 39% were slaves - North Carolina (395,005) was third - of which 26% were slaves.

Again, for those who missed it:

So, you're say that reducing the save population by 2/5 in determining seats in Congress for slave states was was to HELP(?) those states? The slaves states were counting slaves as a whole person prior to the 3/5 Compromise!

You must have not done well in math to not know that 3/5 is less than 1.

One purpose in the 3/5 Compromise was to reduce the slaves states population, thereby allowing fewer seats in Congress, with the end result of giving them LESS power!

It was BAD for the states, GOOD for the country, an was a step toward abolishing slavery.

And that is a fact, like it or not.

This is exactly what I was trying to explain to CAREBEAR, and his pal, Starsky and Hutch. They didn't get it, so why even try. They are either a product of their own brainwashing, or they are a product of failed public schools. In either case, no reason to keep beating our heads against the wall, we have 2 years before ever having to worry about their illogical thought processes might have an effect on anything the Federal government does-)

imawhosure, it's getting tiresome trying to educate the ignorant when they have no willingness to learn.

Don't you agree?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I updated my post.
It's still only half of that and not worth arguing over. I get your point.

Were we once married? You sound like my ex-wife. "I changed my answer. I get your point but you're still wrong". WTF?

You should have specified those who voted.
Voters in my mind is all voters.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Virginia was the biggest beneficiary of the electoral college system. It was also the biggest state.

I don't think they can grasp their head around this.

Virginia, as you say, was the largest state, with a total population of 747,550 - of which 39% were slaves - North Carolina (395,005) was third - of which 26% were slaves.

Again, for those who missed it:

So, you're say that reducing the save population by 2/5 in determining seats in Congress for slave states was was to HELP(?) those states? The slaves states were counting slaves as a whole person prior to the 3/5 Compromise!

You must have not done well in math to not know that 3/5 is less than 1.

One purpose in the 3/5 Compromise was to reduce the slaves states population, thereby allowing fewer seats in Congress, with the end result of giving them LESS power!

It was BAD for the states, GOOD for the country, an was a step toward abolishing slavery.

And that is a fact, like it or not.

This is exactly what I was trying to explain to CAREBEAR, and his pal, Starsky and Hutch. They didn't get it, so why even try. They are either a product of their own brainwashing, or they are a product of failed public schools. In either case, no reason to keep beating our heads against the wall, we have 2 years before ever having to worry about their illogical thought processes might have an effect on anything the Federal government does-)

Slaves were property, so they shouldn't have been counted as people AT ALL. You can't have it both ways, unless of course someone caves in and gives you 3/5ths of a person status for each of your slave properties.

More from my link:

"in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.”

So he's saying black people shouldn't count at all and you agree with him.

 

[g5000]

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.

Link?

 

[Divine Wind]

You should have specified those who voted.
Voters in my mind is all voters.

The fact you don't know the difference between being a voter and simply registering to vote isn't my problem, it's yours.

Anyone curious why voter turnout was at a 20 year low?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/

Voter turnout at 20-year low in 2016 - CNNPolitics.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

Virginia was the biggest beneficiary of the electoral college system. It was also the biggest state.

I don't think they can grasp their head around this.

Virginia, as you say, was the largest state, with a total population of 747,550 - of which 39% were slaves - North Carolina (395,005) was third - of which 26% were slaves.

Again, for those who missed it:

So, you're say that reducing the save population by 2/5 in determining seats in Congress for slave states was was to HELP(?) those states? The slaves states were counting slaves as a whole person prior to the 3/5 Compromise!

You must have not done well in math to not know that 3/5 is less than 1.

One purpose in the 3/5 Compromise was to reduce the slaves states population, thereby allowing fewer seats in Congress, with the end result of giving them LESS power!

It was BAD for the states, GOOD for the country, an was a step toward abolishing slavery.

And that is a fact, like it or not.

This is exactly what I was trying to explain to CAREBEAR, and his pal, Starsky and Hutch. They didn't get it, so why even try. They are either a product of their own brainwashing, or they are a product of failed public schools. In either case, no reason to keep beating our heads against the wall, we have 2 years before ever having to worry about their illogical thought processes might have an effect on anything the Federal government does-)

Slaves were property, so they shouldn't have been counted as people AT ALL. You can't have it both ways, unless of course someone caves in and gives you 3/5ths of a person status for each of your slave properties.

More from my link:

"in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.”

So he's saying black people shouldn't count at all and you agree with him.

Do you know what year this is?

I'm genuinely curious.