CNN Guest Host Claims The Electoral College Is Rooted In Slavery

[SweetTea]

You're not smart, you're not educated, and you're not capable of debating this topic.

That is the bottom line.

You aren't educated, you are indoctrinated.

 

[task0778]

"She’s defending Hillary’s 2016 loss by claiming the Electoral College was created because of slavery: “The electoral college is rooted in slavery."

This is pure BS. Hillary lost cuz she was a shit candidate and ran on a shit agenda. The EC was created to reach a compromise between northern and southern states, so that the more rural south would have enough representation in the federal gov't.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

they didnt count as a whole person which they were which was not an advantage but a negative.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is a good article as to why the Electoral College exists.

Why Was the Electoral College Created? | HISTORY

The Founding Fathers had to compromise when it came to devising a system to elect the president.

www.history.com

 

[Alicia J]

You aren't educated, you are indoctrinated.

I'm sure that is what your fucked-up MAGA religion tells you, gomer.

Go pray to your orange god some more....

 

[SeaMajor7]

Sure thing, dirt stupid MAGA bumpkin.

You really told me!

Oh my, I am completely defeated by your brilliant retort.
You really do know everything.
I you, Alicia J.

 

[Alicia J]

they didnt count as a whole person which they were which was not an advantage but a negative.

A negative for the slave.....not a negative for the Southern states, genius.

 

[Rawley]

You decided to double-down on your stupidity.

It's known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, dolt. From the very beginning of this country, Southern states had a representation advantage in the U.S. government. --

The Three-fifths Compromise, also known as the Constitutional Compromise of 1787, was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slaves in counting a state's total population. This count would determine the number of seats in the House of Representatives, the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated,<a href="Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> and how much money the states would pay in taxes.

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Woosh. Don't know that I can, but I'll try: Would a slave state have more seats in Congress (in the EC) if the slaves in the state were counted as a whole person or 3/5th a person.

This is literally 4th grade math.

 

[my2¢]

I wouldn't doubt it. There was a political power tug of war going on between free and slave states. The slave states found things acceptable until Lincoln got elected and they saw the writing on the war about their loss of balance in that political power struggle.

 

[kyzr]

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

Nope

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 that doesn't prove the EC was "rooted in slavery" duh. Read and learn:

The Great Compromise and the Electoral College​

The Great Compromise—also called the Connecticut Compromise—was a pivotal agreement reached at the 1787 Constitutional Convention that resolved a major dispute over how states would be represented in Congress. It also indirectly shaped the design of the Electoral College.

The Great Compromise​

Delegates from larger states (like Virginia) wanted representation in Congress based on population, so that more populous states would have more influence. Smaller states (like New Jersey) feared being drowned out and insisted on equal representation for each state History+1.
The compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, created a bicameral Congress:

• House of Representatives: Seats allocated proportionally by population.
• Senate: Each state, regardless of size, would have two senators elected by state legislatures History+1.

This balanced the interests of both large and small states and helped secure ratification of the Constitution.

Link to the Electoral College​

The Electoral College was another compromise between two extremes:

• Purely popular vote: All citizens would vote directly for president.
• Congressional vote: The House and Senate would choose the president National Archives.

The framers chose the Electoral College to:

• Balance state influence: Prevent candidates from focusing only on populous states, ensuring smaller states had a voice in presidential selection legalclarity.org.
• Address practical concerns: In the late 18th century, communication and information flow were limited, so electors (chosen by state legislatures or popular vote) were seen as more informed and deliberative than a direct national vote legalclarity.org.
• Encourage broad coalitions: Candidates had to appeal to multiple regions to win enough electoral votes legalclarity.org.

The Electoral College’s structure—where each state’s number of electors equals its total congressional delegation (Senators + Representatives)—mirrors the Great Compromise’s principle of equal state representation in the Senate. Just as each state gets two senators regardless of size, each state gets a set number of electors, protecting smaller states’ influence in presidential elections History+1.

In short: The Great Compromise resolved the congressional representation debate, and its equal-state-representation principle became a core feature of the Electoral College, ensuring that no single region could dominate presidential elections.

 

[Alicia J]

Woosh. Don't know that I can, but I'll try: Would a slave state have more seats in Congress (in the EC) if the slaves in the tsate were counted as a whole person or 3/5th a person.

This is literally 4th grade math.

You don't get it.

Even if each slave counted only 1/5 of a person, that still gives the Southern states more electoral college votes.

Without that extra 3/5s for the slave population in the Southern states, Jefferson loses to Adams in 1800.

You're a child.

 

[Alicia J]

Nope

So that doesn't prove the EC was "rooted in slavery" duh. Read and learn:

It still doesn't change the fact that Southerner Thomas Jefferson defeated Northerner John Adams in 1800 due primarily to the Southern slave population......who couldn't even vote.

 

[Rawley]

You don't get it.

Whooosh 2.

Even if each slave counted only 1/5 of a person, that still gives the Southern states more electoral college votes.

Without that extra 3/5s for the slave population in the Southern states, Jefferson loses to Adams in 1800.

In your thinking slaves should not have been counted at all. Wow.

You're a child.

And you're a stone cold racist.

 

[kyzr]

You don't get it.

You don't get it. A specific election result has nothing to do with the origin of the Electoral College dumbass.

Even if each slave counted only 1/5 of a person, that still gives the Southern states more electoral college votes.
Without that extra 3/5s for the slave population in the Southern states, Jefferson loses to Adams in 1800.
You're a child.

So how does that prove that the EC is rooted in slavery? It doesn't.

 

[Rawley]

It still doesn't change the fact that Southerner Thomas Jefferson defeated Northerner John Adams in 1800 due primarily to the Southern slave population......who couldn't even vote.

LOL Do we add misogyny to your repertoire too? Women didn't have the vote either. Should they not be counted toward the EC either?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A negative for the slave.....not a negative for the Southern states, genius.

stupid the slaves were people and not being able to vote wasnt why they werent included since in the beginning only male property owners could vote.

 

[kyzr]

It still doesn't change the fact that Southerner Thomas Jefferson defeated Northerner John Adams in 1800 due primarily to the Southern slave population......who couldn't even vote.

Your argument has nothing to do with how the Electoral College came into being, and that it was formed because of slavery, there is no connection between an election in 1800 and the writing of the Constitution in 1775.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The EC is based on population.

Cali has more EC votes than Iowa.

 

[Alicia J]

Whooosh 2.

In your thinking slaves should not have been counted at all. Wow.

Why should they count when they couldn't vote, idiot? Blame the South for not ending slavery.

And you're a stone cold racist.

No, you are. That's why you have been in love with Trump for the past 10 years, starting with his racist lies about Obama.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

America is where the most prosperous Black people in the world live.
Why aren't the Black people in African countries as prosperous?