CNN Guest Host Claims The Electoral College Is Rooted In Slavery

[M14 Shooter]

Just because it needs to be said:
The electoral college isn't going anywhere; the fact you do not like it does not matter in the slightest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once again we see why American cannot have nice things.

Demtwats.

 

[Man With A Plan]

What are you confused about, dumb ass?

The Southern states were given extra electoral college votes for their slaves. That is a historical fact, no matter how much a MAGA troll like you tries to spin it.

Do you not grasp that States like California are given extra electoral college votes based on the number of illegals they have in their States?

 

[Alicia J]

Do you not grasp that States like California are given extra electoral college votes based on the number of illegals they have in their States?

Good. Because it's a joke that California, a state that is over 60 times larger than Wyoming, only has 54 EC votes....while Wyoming gets 3 EC votes by default.

 

[Alicia J]

The thread is about the EC not the 3.5 compromise

You can't talk about one without the other. The 3/5 Compromise had a major impact on the EC when the Constitution was written.

You shows your intellectual weakness byu constantly diverting to something else.

You show your intellectual weakness by pretending these are two mutually exclusive issues. Not even close.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good. Because it's a joke that California, a state that is over 60 times larger than Wyoming, only has 54 EC votes....while Wyoming gets 3 EC votes by default.

California has 52 times the representatives Wyoming has.
They both have 2 senators.

Why is that a joke?

 

[Alicia J]

The compromise was rooted in slavery...the College itself was not.

Hill's take was some weak schit.

Not that weak at all. They are closely related.

The Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention would have walked out if the Northern states didn't give them the extra political power they desired.

 

[Alicia J]

California has 52 times the representatives Wyoming has.
They both have 2 senators.

Why is that a joke?

54 / 3 = 18. You mean California only has 18 times as much political power in Congress...despite having over 60 times as many people.

So a voter in Wyoming has significantly more power than a voter in California. And it's like that in all the sparsely populated red states that only have 3 EC votes.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Good. Because it's a joke that California, a state that is over 60 times larger than Wyoming, only has 54 EC votes....while Wyoming gets 3 EC votes by default.

Is it a "joke" that California gets some of those Electoral College votes because the Census counts the millions of illegals that you liberals flooded the country with?

 

[candycorn]

Not that weak at all. They are closely related.

No not really.

The Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention would have walked out if the Northern states didn't give them the extra political power they desired.

I think you’re confusing racism with slavery. Both are abhorrent and should be resisted on all fronts. What the lawmakers were tangling with was slavery....not skin color. There were some--admittedly not as many and in no way near proportionately--populations of northern states reduced by the same crompromise.

So the analogy you’re trying to draw would have been faulty in the 1700’s. It’s incredibly nutty to draw that analogy in 2026.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Not that weak at all. They are closely related.

The Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention would have walked out if the Northern states didn't give them the extra political power they desired.

I think you fail to realize what the Electoral College's purpose was, Alicia. The United States was never supposed to be nation where only the States with large cities held political power. It was set up deliberately so that rural areas wouldn't be totally dominated by urban areas. Now you may not like that (because liberals control most of the big cities!) but since most of the big cities are run terribly it's obvious that the reasoning for the Electoral College is quite sound.

 

[g5000]

.
Said the guy who never won 50 percent of the popular vote in THREE elections!

I guess he's right!

 

[Alicia J]

No not really.

I think you’re confusing racism with slavery. Both are abhorrent and should be resisted on all fronts. What the lawmakers were tangling with was slavery....not skin color. There were some--admittedly not as many and in no way near proportionately--populations of northern states reduced by the same crompromise.

That makes absolutely no sense. Slavery in the Americas was 100% based on race. African Americans as a race were always thought of as inferior due to their skin color.

If you were making an argument about slavery in ancient Rome or somewhere else 1,000 - 2,000 years ago, then that would make more sense. But what you said is just 100% about wrong about slavery in North and South America.

 

[Leo123]

That is a historical fact that the EC is rooted in slavery.

John Adams would have won re-election against Virginian Thomas Jefferson in 1800 if it wasn't for the slave-heavy Southern states and the additional EC votes from slaves counting as 3/5 of a citizen.

So, you are for NOT counting slaves at all?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That makes absolutely no sense. Slavery in the Americas was 100% based on race. African Americans as a race were always thought of as inferior due to their skin color.

If you were making an argument about slavery in ancient Rome or somewhere else 1,000 - 2,000 years ago, then that would make more sense. But what you said is just 100% about wrong about slavery in North and South America.

there were still white people that were indentured servants and slaves.

 

[Alicia J]

I think you fail to realize what the Electoral College's purpose was, Alicia. The United States was never supposed to be nation where only the States with large cities held political power. It was set up deliberately so that rural areas wouldn't be totally dominated by urban areas. Now you may not like that (because liberals control most of the big cities!) but since most of the big cities are run terribly it's obvious that the reasoning for the Electoral College is quite sound.

America was 90% rural in the 1780s. This argument carries no weight at all.

What you really meant to say is that the Constitution was setup so that the least populous states would not be dominated by the most populous states.

And Virginia (a slave state) was always one of the most powerful colonies. 4 of the first 5 Presidents came from Virginia. It's very impressive that a Northerner like John Adams was ever elected President, having to compete against Virginia. It's a testament to Adams' abilities that he was able to overcome the Virginia Mafia and get elected President.

 

[Alicia J]

there were still white people that were indentured servants and slaves.

No, there were some white indentured servants. But never white slaves.

 

[Alicia J]

So, you are for NOT counting slaves at all?

Why should the Southern states get an EC advantage for participating in something immoral like slavery?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why should the Southern states get an EC advantage for participating in something immoral like slavery?

why should illegals count today they are violating the law.

 

[Alicia J]

why should illegals count today they are violating the law.

Illegal immigration is not immoral for one thing, unlike slavery. The vast majority of these people come here for a better life.

But it doesn't matter to me whether or not illegal immigrants are included in the EC.