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

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Your ridicule isn't educational. Try presenting some facts.

 

[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.

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.

"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."

Holy fuck, are you messed up.

No, idiot, they were not counting slaves as a whole in the US Census prior to the Constitution, which embedded the 3/5 compromise.

Your lack of history and logic skills are in total disrepair.

 

[Rustic]

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?

Your ridicule isn't educational. Try presenting some facts.

Hillary Clinton supporters need to quit whining about the Electoral College

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

We both know what year it is; it is the year when you found it necessary to call anyone who doesn't support your nonsense about the electoral college a racist.

 

[paperview]

A little fun historical factoid; When the Confederates slave states wrote their Constitution, which embedded slavery perpetually -- they also included the 3/5th clause.

 

[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.

Link?

Link to what?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Your right to be wrong is not under dispute.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

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.”

"You can't have it both ways"

That's the point. Slave states said slaves were property, and was using them in figuring depreciation of property values, while at the same time counting them as population. Northern anti-slavery states told them, in essence, "you can't have it both ways".

FREE blacks in the North were not subject to the 3/5 Compromise. They were counted as whole people.

 

[paperview]

ICYMI:


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.

 

[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.

"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."

Holy fuck, are you messed up.

No, idiot, they were not counting slaves as a whole in the US Census prior to the Constitution, which embedded the 3/5 compromise.

Your lack of history and logic skills are in total disrepair.

Whatever. But a few facts sill remain.

The 3/5 Compromise was not racist. It was a step towards abolishing slavery, and minimizing slave state power in Congress.

The Electoral College Compromise was not to strengthen slave state powers in a Presidential election. It was to give smaller states, as a group, to have an equal (?) voice to that of the more populous slave states. Without the Electoral College it may have taken decades longer for slavery to be abolished because, as the Founders believed, the Southern states would continuously elect pro-slavery Presidents.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

It's not worth arguing. I really don't care.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

"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."

Holy fuck, are you messed up.

No, idiot, they were not counting slaves as a whole in the US Census prior to the Constitution, which embedded the 3/5 compromise.

Your lack of history and logic skills are in total disrepair.

Whatever. But a few facts sill remain.

The 3/5 Compromise was not racist. It was a step towards abolishing slavery, and minimizing slave state power in Congress.

The Electoral College Compromise was not to strengthen slave state powers in a Presidential election. It was to give smaller states, as a group, to have an equal (?) voice to that of the more populous slave states. Without the Electoral College it may have taken decades longer for slavery to be abolished because, as the Founders believed, the Southern states would continuously elect pro-slavery Presidents.

The slave states were the small states before slaves were added to their population. That's why they wanted them counted.

 

[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?

Link to what?

Evidence for your claim that slavery was the primary reason for the electoral college.

 

[kwc57]

If/when the left ever gives up claiming the electoral college was created out of racism, they have a new myth in the pipeline. Global warming is growing because of the electoral college.

I will say this, the left are a creative bunch.

The electoral college is thwarting our ability to battle global warming

 

[imawhosure]

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.

"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."

Holy fuck, are you messed up.

No, idiot, they were not counting slaves as a whole in the US Census prior to the Constitution, which embedded the 3/5 compromise.

Your lack of history and logic skills are in total disrepair.

Whatever. But a few facts sill remain.

The 3/5 Compromise was not racist. It was a step towards abolishing slavery, and minimizing slave state power in Congress.

The Electoral College Compromise was not to strengthen slave state powers in a Presidential election. It was to give smaller states, as a group, to have an equal (?) voice to that of the more populous slave states. Without the Electoral College it may have taken decades longer for slavery to be abolished because, as the Founders believed, the Southern states would continuously elect pro-slavery Presidents.

Derelict, this is why arguing with them is useless! Did I misread the OP author of this thread, and did he NOT insist basically, that the EC was created out of racism? And now, after the LOGICAL people show......and prove..........that this compromise actually helped foster in much more quickly, the abolition of slavery, and that without the compromise there would be no United States, the OP narrative still remains with a shrug from the author and his supporters.

There is no doubt within a day or 2, another lefty, who knows better no less, will start another thread using a different combination of words to profess the same misinformation. They can't win or even make a case, unless they lie! They NEVER want to talk about their policy, they want to talk about racism. Why? Because it is their astro turfing BUZZWORD! In reality, THEY are the racists! They are the party who has had black America in their camp since LBJ; and yet, they can't create any jobs for them. Why is that?

I will tell you why, and they can throw me off this site if they want----------->because Democrats refuse to reinvigorate the inner cities where most poor, black Americans are. They don't want the inner cities revitalized to much, because if that happens, when taxes go up because of Democratic policies, black Americans won't like it either. Go tell a worker his taxes are going up, or he may lose his job because of government policy, and you know what happens? Donald Trump, carrying more black votes than either Romney or Mcain did, along with union votes. They need to keep poor, black, Americans.....on their LIBERAL PLANTATION! Black and Union voters a large part of why Donald Trump is the President elect! (by the way, are people aware of where this strategy came from? I am, and it was written in a book by Rick Santorum. Problem was, regular Republicans could NOT use the strategy as written because of ingrained political reasons. Trump could!)

In the end, all these astro turfers (look at how many posts they have) are doing the bidding of their DNC masters, using the same buzzwords, and tired by lines. They do not care one bit what America wants, or the constitution says. Their only focus is MONEY PER POST! In other words, kinda like Hillary Clinton, how much money she could make after she left office, if she promised to win the Presidency. They are ALL phony; or at least the largest % of them. It is also the reason their attacks are virtually duplicates. Their DNC masters give them the talking points, then turn them loose to try and persuade public opinion. Just consider-------->in the world according to them, Trump can do nothing right, and yet, he has yet to do anything in the governments name since he is still a private citizen until Jan 20th, lol. If this does not tell you how much their DNC masters have control over them, nothing will.........but I will give you this.......................................we come on here for fun, and to squash snowflakes like Carebear. They have to come on here to get paid, and they know when they are getting hosed in a debate, which is almost everytime, lol. They have no self worth, they will sell themselves for a couple of nickels, and isn't that how Hilly got herself in trouble? Is it any wonder THESE people support her so blindly, they are kindred spirits, money and ideology above all else, The United States of America, and the coming generations be damned!

 

[Penelope]

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.

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.

I don't think you ever have an intelligent reply.

 

[Divine Wind]

It's not worth arguing. I really don't care.

Obviously you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have replied.

No interest in my questions?

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

 

[Divine Wind]

The slave states were the small states before slaves were added to their population. That's why they wanted them counted.

Incorrect....again. Where are you getting your data?

This is from the 1790 census:
1790 United States Census - Wikipedia

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The slave states were the small states before slaves were added to their population. That's why they wanted them counted.

Incorrect....again. Where are you getting your data?

This is from the 1790 census:
1790 United States Census - Wikipedia

Add up the population of the slave and non slave states respectively.The reason the slave states wanted the slaves to count becomes apparent.

 

[Divine Wind]

Add up the population of the slave and non slave states respectively.The reason the slave states wanted the slaves to count becomes apparent.

For obvious reasons. Every state wanted to drive up their numbers. Still, the link disproved your claim "slave states were the small states before slaves were added". Move the goalposts all you like, but 1) the EC wasn't enacted because of slavery and 2) the smallest population states were not all south of the Mason-Dixon line.