CNN Guest Host Claims The Electoral College Is Rooted In Slavery

[Robert W]

rump as soon as he started questioning Obama's citizenship.

Obamas document he submitted has 9 points of forgery.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=9+points+of+forgery+obama+birth+certificate

 

[Rawley]

If "it" refers to the EC, it's in Article II.

Cool. So the 3/5ths racist part is in Article II, Can you quote it for us?

 

[Rawley]

When the EC was created, it included counting 3/5 of the slaves in the Southern states.

Cool. Since you're the expert, perhaps you can help Greenbeard find 3/5ths in Article II

 

[Fang]

Wrong.

There is nothing racist about the position that th EC was rooted in slavery.

In the context the CNN talking head used the phrase it certainly is racist. That woman and those of her ilk see race in everything around them. That makes them racist.

 

[Alicia J]

Obamas document he submitted has 9 points of forgery.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=9+points+of+forgery+obama+birth+certificate

Yeah, yeah, yeah, mentally ill racist......thank you for proving my point yet again about every loyal Trump supporter being a racist.

 

[Robert W]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, mentally ill racist......thank you for proving my point yet again about every loyal Trump supporter being a racist.

You are a one tune Alicia J. No new insults, same o same o

I did not create the proof or have a thing to do with those who proved Obamas' BC is a forgery in 9 points.

 

[Robert W]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, mentally ill racist......thank you for proving my point yet again about every loyal Trump supporter being a racist.

Since you clearly hate your own race and call your race racists daily, I guess you are in bed with a black who performed a con job on you since he loves whites and you do not.

 

[Alicia J]

Since you clearly hate your own race and call your race racists daily, I guess you are in bed with a black who performed a con job on you since he loves whites and you do not.

^^^^ You are simply too stupid to understand how racist this is.

Just a ridiculous, clueless, racist old man....

 

[Alicia J]

In the context the CNN talking head used the phrase it certainly is racist. That woman and those of her ilk see race in everything around them. That makes them racist.

There is nothing remotely racist about what they said.

You being butthurt about historical fact is your problem, not theirs.

 

[jotathought]

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.

You’re confusing an institution’s purpose with a side effect of another constitutional compromise. The Electoral College existed because states demanded it. The 3/5 Compromise changed the math, not the reason it existed.

 

[Robert W]

^^^^ You are simply too stupid to understand how racist this is.

Just a ridiculous, clueless, racist old man....

You are a white woman devoted to blacks, hates her race, and uses the excuse of racist daily.

 

[Robert W]

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.

At the time of the Philadelphia convention, no other country in the world directly elected its chief executive, so the delegates were wading into uncharted territory. Further complicating the task was a deep-rooted distrust of executive power. After all, the fledgling nation had just fought its way out from under a tyrannical king and overreaching colonial governors. They didn’t want another despot on their hands.
One group of delegates felt strongly that Congress shouldn’t have anything to do with picking the president. Too much opportunity for chummy corruption between the executive and legislative branches.
Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.
Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.

Actually, slaves did not vote at all. Whites allocated about them a figure to add up the votes of the rest.

It was a great deal for slaves, so they were able to count for them being part of the USA.

 

[Alicia J]

You’re confusing an institution’s purpose with a side effect of another constitutional compromise. The Electoral College existed because states demanded it. The 3/5 Compromise changed the math, not the reason it existed.

Yes, the Southern states demanded extra political power via their slave population. Which is why the EC is absolutely rooted in slavery.

 

[Greenbeard]

You’re confusing an institution’s purpose with a side effect of another constitutional compromise. The Electoral College existed because states demanded it. The 3/5 Compromise changed the math, not the reason it existed.

The math is the reason. Electors allowed slave states to convert enslaved population figures into electoral influence, whereas a direct election would not have.

 

[jotathought]

Yes, the Southern states demanded extra political power via their slave population. Which is why the EC is absolutely rooted in slavery.

“Slave states benefited from it” and “it was created for slavery” are not the same argument. That’s like saying roads were created for speeding because speeders benefit from roads.

 

[Robert W]

Yes, the Southern states demanded extra political power via their slave population. Which is why the EC is absolutely rooted in slavery.

You know how to twist a pretzel into a birthday cake.

 

[Robert W]

The math is the reason. Electors allowed slave states to convert enslaved population figures into electoral influence, whereas a direct election would not have.

The North wanted the EC and at first what it would have done is exclude a huge number of the population in the South therefore making sure only the North would elect presidents. The south was given the 3/5 vote to make up for lesser whites in the south. But the claim it is rooted in slavery is laughable. It is rooted in population only.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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

Hill's take was some weak schit.

 

[Greenbeard]

The North wanted the EC and at first what it would have done is exclude a huge number of the population in the South therefore making sure only the North would elect presidents. The south was given the 3/5 vote to make up for lesser whites in the south. But the claim it is rooted in slavery is laughable. It is rooted in population only.

Your post sneaks in the (accurate) conceit that a fundamental divergence existed in the interests of the North and South, dominated the politics of that era, and ultimately shaped the design of the Constitution and the institutions of the republic. That all-consuming fault line was, of course, slavery.

If we’re talking about North-South political tensions in the late 18th century, we’ve already smuggled in the slavery issue.

 

[Robert W]

Your post sneaks in the (accurate) conceit that a fundamental divergence existed in the interests of the North and South, dominated the politics of that era, and ultimately shaped the design of the Constitution and the institutions of the republic. That all-consuming fault line was, of course, slavery.

If we’re talking about North-South political tensions in the late 18th century, we’ve already smuggled in the slavery issue.

How would the founders pick a president? What powers go to presidents? Would the congress pick the president? Would the public play a role? How could presidents be picked given the differences in populations? What would it take for presidents to come from the north and the South. I doubt when this nation was founded, they saw it in terms of north and south. When they decided on the EC, the South wanted parity and got it.