The Real Reason for the Electoral College? Slavery

[GaryDog]

I am not sure who wrote this piece, but the three-fifths clause is in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. The presidential election and electoral votes are in Article II.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

There may be a roundabout way to attribute electoral votes by the number of districts, but that was too far in the distance and implausible.

Electoral votes are determined by each state's total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. Counting slaves (even as 3/5ths) affects that number, which in turn affects the electoral votes for president. Thought this was pretty clear.

What was pretty clear? Do you think the Southern states had an advantage because of the 3/5s clause regarding electoral votes?

Of course they did. They had black slaves (property) that could count as points for representation in Congress. Meanwhile, that property cannot vote, and is subject to the whims of the owners.

 

[GaryDog]

View attachment 98723

Anything like this?

 

[Tennyson]

I am not sure who wrote this piece, but the three-fifths clause is in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. The presidential election and electoral votes are in Article II.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

There may be a roundabout way to attribute electoral votes by the number of districts, but that was too far in the distance and implausible.

Electoral votes are determined by each state's total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. Counting slaves (even as 3/5ths) affects that number, which in turn affects the electoral votes for president. Thought this was pretty clear.

What was pretty clear? Do you think the Southern states had an advantage because of the 3/5s clause regarding electoral votes?

Of course they did. They had black slaves (property) that could count as points for representation in Congress. Meanwhile, that property cannot vote, and is subject to the whims of the owners.

The numbers do not support that. The population of the southern states including 3/5s of the slaves was still a few thousand less than the other states. This had no affect on the southern states having an electoral vote advantage.

 

[miketx]

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states

In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. “And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)”

This pro-slavery compromise was not clear to everyone when the Constitution was adopted, but it was clearly evident to everyone when the Electoral College was amended after the Jefferson-Adams contest of 1796 and 1800. These elections were decided, in large part, by the extra electoral votes created by slavery. Without the 13 extra electoral votes created by Southern slavery, John Adams would've won even in 1800, and every federalist knows that after the election.

And yet when the Constitution is amended, the slavery bias is preserved.

Yet another reason to amend the Constitution....Old ideology that need a upgrade, starting with stupid white people shouldn't be allowed to vote

Hey black boy, go burn down a drug store, you got about 2 months.

 

[GaryDog]

I am not sure who wrote this piece, but the three-fifths clause is in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. The presidential election and electoral votes are in Article II.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

There may be a roundabout way to attribute electoral votes by the number of districts, but that was too far in the distance and implausible.

Electoral votes are determined by each state's total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. Counting slaves (even as 3/5ths) affects that number, which in turn affects the electoral votes for president. Thought this was pretty clear.

What was pretty clear? Do you think the Southern states had an advantage because of the 3/5s clause regarding electoral votes?

Of course they did. They had black slaves (property) that could count as points for representation in Congress. Meanwhile, that property cannot vote, and is subject to the whims of the owners.

The numbers do not support that. The population of the southern states including 3/5s of the slaves was still a few thousand less than the other states. This had no affect on the southern states having an electoral vote advantage.

I don't know what to say to that, except this must be your first experience with numbers.

 

[Tennyson]

I am not sure who wrote this piece, but the three-fifths clause is in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. The presidential election and electoral votes are in Article II.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

There may be a roundabout way to attribute electoral votes by the number of districts, but that was too far in the distance and implausible.

Electoral votes are determined by each state's total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. Counting slaves (even as 3/5ths) affects that number, which in turn affects the electoral votes for president. Thought this was pretty clear.

What was pretty clear? Do you think the Southern states had an advantage because of the 3/5s clause regarding electoral votes?

Of course they did. They had black slaves (property) that could count as points for representation in Congress. Meanwhile, that property cannot vote, and is subject to the whims of the owners.

The numbers do not support that. The population of the southern states including 3/5s of the slaves was still a few thousand less than the other states. This had no affect on the southern states having an electoral vote advantage.

I don't know what to say to that, except this must be your first experience with numbers.

Do you want to break the numbers down to demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states?

 

[GaryDog]

Electoral votes are determined by each state's total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. Counting slaves (even as 3/5ths) affects that number, which in turn affects the electoral votes for president. Thought this was pretty clear.

What was pretty clear? Do you think the Southern states had an advantage because of the 3/5s clause regarding electoral votes?

Of course they did. They had black slaves (property) that could count as points for representation in Congress. Meanwhile, that property cannot vote, and is subject to the whims of the owners.

The numbers do not support that. The population of the southern states including 3/5s of the slaves was still a few thousand less than the other states. This had no affect on the southern states having an electoral vote advantage.

I don't know what to say to that, except this must be your first experience with numbers.

Do you want to break the numbers down to demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states?

Uh, at the time of the constitutional convention, Virginia was the most populous state in the union, if you counted slaves. Slaves represented half of the population. Slaves were property. Accordingly, human beings got MORE representation in congress if they owned slaves than if they didn't.

That is, without a doubt, a huge advantage (for the slaveowners. Not so much for the slaves.)

 

[Tennyson]

What was pretty clear? Do you think the Southern states had an advantage because of the 3/5s clause regarding electoral votes?

Of course they did. They had black slaves (property) that could count as points for representation in Congress. Meanwhile, that property cannot vote, and is subject to the whims of the owners.

The numbers do not support that. The population of the southern states including 3/5s of the slaves was still a few thousand less than the other states. This had no affect on the southern states having an electoral vote advantage.

I don't know what to say to that, except this must be your first experience with numbers.

Do you want to break the numbers down to demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states?

Uh, at the time of the constitutional convention, Virginia was the most populous state in the union, if you counted slaves. Slaves represented half of the population. Slaves were property. Accordingly, human beings got MORE representation in congress if they owned slaves than if they didn't.

That is, without a doubt, a huge advantage (for the slaveowners. Not so much for the slaves.)

That is not what I asked for to substantiate your claim that the numbers demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states. Can you provide the numbers that the southern states had an electoral advantage over the other states because of the 3/5s clause?

 

[GaryDog]

Of course they did. They had black slaves (property) that could count as points for representation in Congress. Meanwhile, that property cannot vote, and is subject to the whims of the owners.

The numbers do not support that. The population of the southern states including 3/5s of the slaves was still a few thousand less than the other states. This had no affect on the southern states having an electoral vote advantage.

I don't know what to say to that, except this must be your first experience with numbers.

Do you want to break the numbers down to demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states?

Uh, at the time of the constitutional convention, Virginia was the most populous state in the union, if you counted slaves. Slaves represented half of the population. Slaves were property. Accordingly, human beings got MORE representation in congress if they owned slaves than if they didn't.

That is, without a doubt, a huge advantage (for the slaveowners. Not so much for the slaves.)

That is not what I asked for to substantiate your claim that the numbers demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states. Can you provide the numbers that the southern states had an electoral advantage over the other states because of the 3/5s clause?

What aren't you getting about this? They had MORE representation than they had citizens. Free states did not. How is that not an advantage for slave states? Did they have a plurality? Is that what you think needs to happen before they have undue influence in Congress, and the EC?

Do you even follow politics at all?

 

[Tennyson]

The numbers do not support that. The population of the southern states including 3/5s of the slaves was still a few thousand less than the other states. This had no affect on the southern states having an electoral vote advantage.

I don't know what to say to that, except this must be your first experience with numbers.

Do you want to break the numbers down to demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states?

Uh, at the time of the constitutional convention, Virginia was the most populous state in the union, if you counted slaves. Slaves represented half of the population. Slaves were property. Accordingly, human beings got MORE representation in congress if they owned slaves than if they didn't.

That is, without a doubt, a huge advantage (for the slaveowners. Not so much for the slaves.)

That is not what I asked for to substantiate your claim that the numbers demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states. Can you provide the numbers that the southern states had an electoral advantage over the other states because of the 3/5s clause?

What aren't you getting about this? They had MORE representation than they had citizens. Free states did not. How is that not an advantage for slave states? Did they have a plurality? Is that what you think needs to happen before they have undue influence in Congress, and the EC?

Do you even follow politics at all?

You just justified one of the purposes of the electoral college.

You are still avoiding my question regardless of your sophmoric ad hominem.

 

[GaryDog]

I don't know what to say to that, except this must be your first experience with numbers.

Do you want to break the numbers down to demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states?

Uh, at the time of the constitutional convention, Virginia was the most populous state in the union, if you counted slaves. Slaves represented half of the population. Slaves were property. Accordingly, human beings got MORE representation in congress if they owned slaves than if they didn't.

That is, without a doubt, a huge advantage (for the slaveowners. Not so much for the slaves.)

That is not what I asked for to substantiate your claim that the numbers demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states. Can you provide the numbers that the southern states had an electoral advantage over the other states because of the 3/5s clause?

What aren't you getting about this? They had MORE representation than they had citizens. Free states did not. How is that not an advantage for slave states? Did they have a plurality? Is that what you think needs to happen before they have undue influence in Congress, and the EC?

Do you even follow politics at all?

You just justified one of the purposes of the electoral college.

You are still avoiding my question regardless of your sophmoric ad hominem.

I justified a purpose of the EC?

I'm not avoiding any of your questions. I've answered it in full. Right now I believe you have some sort of weird agenda with your questions, in our quest to justify the EC when it's eminently unfair as devised in 1787. You realize slaves couldn't vote, right? Therefore their masters got to use the existence of these slaves to improve their voice in congress (a voice which was devoted to keeping slaves enslaved).

In what way did the slave states NOT have an advantage, given these facts?

 

[boedicca]

Not saying a vote for Trump was necessarily racist. Just pointing out the origins of the EC. If you take personal offense, that says a lot more about you.

blah blah blah...yawn so sleepy zzzzzzz

 

[GaryDog]

Not saying a vote for Trump was necessarily racist. Just pointing out the origins of the EC. If you take personal offense, that says a lot more about you.

blah blah blah...yawn so sleepy zzzzzzz

Then go sleep, you pathetic asshole. Adults are talking.

 

[boedicca]

Not saying a vote for Trump was necessarily racist. Just pointing out the origins of the EC. If you take personal offense, that says a lot more about you.

blah blah blah...yawn so sleepy zzzzzzz

Then go sleep, you pathetic asshole. Adults are talking.

You're not an adult. You're a whinging pajamaboi who is barking according to the Loser Prog Dog Whistle.

Nobody believes these ad nauseum accusations of RACISM anymore (except of course, for your fellow diehard moonbats). You've worn out the "deplorable" categories by overusing them against anyone who doesn't agree with your political opinions.

 

[Tennyson]

Do you want to break the numbers down to demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states?

Uh, at the time of the constitutional convention, Virginia was the most populous state in the union, if you counted slaves. Slaves represented half of the population. Slaves were property. Accordingly, human beings got MORE representation in congress if they owned slaves than if they didn't.

That is, without a doubt, a huge advantage (for the slaveowners. Not so much for the slaves.)

That is not what I asked for to substantiate your claim that the numbers demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states. Can you provide the numbers that the southern states had an electoral advantage over the other states because of the 3/5s clause?

What aren't you getting about this? They had MORE representation than they had citizens. Free states did not. How is that not an advantage for slave states? Did they have a plurality? Is that what you think needs to happen before they have undue influence in Congress, and the EC?

Do you even follow politics at all?

You just justified one of the purposes of the electoral college.

You are still avoiding my question regardless of your sophmoric ad hominem.

I justified a purpose of the EC?

I'm not avoiding any of your questions. I've answered it in full. Right now I believe you have some sort of weird agenda with your questions, in our quest to justify the EC when it's eminently unfair as devised in 1787. You realize slaves couldn't vote, right? Therefore their masters got to use the existence of these slaves to improve their voice in congress (a voice which was devoted to keeping slaves enslaved).

In what way did the slave states NOT have an advantage, given these facts?

You have used one of the reasons for the electoral college. That is why the Constitution was ratified.

I am waiting for you to give me the number of whites in the southern states and the number of whites in the other states. Then calculate the number of slaves in each multiplied by .6 for congressional representation to 1800.

 

[GaryDog]

Uh, at the time of the constitutional convention, Virginia was the most populous state in the union, if you counted slaves. Slaves represented half of the population. Slaves were property. Accordingly, human beings got MORE representation in congress if they owned slaves than if they didn't.

That is, without a doubt, a huge advantage (for the slaveowners. Not so much for the slaves.)

That is not what I asked for to substantiate your claim that the numbers demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states. Can you provide the numbers that the southern states had an electoral advantage over the other states because of the 3/5s clause?

What aren't you getting about this? They had MORE representation than they had citizens. Free states did not. How is that not an advantage for slave states? Did they have a plurality? Is that what you think needs to happen before they have undue influence in Congress, and the EC?

Do you even follow politics at all?

You just justified one of the purposes of the electoral college.

You are still avoiding my question regardless of your sophmoric ad hominem.

I justified a purpose of the EC?

I'm not avoiding any of your questions. I've answered it in full. Right now I believe you have some sort of weird agenda with your questions, in our quest to justify the EC when it's eminently unfair as devised in 1787. You realize slaves couldn't vote, right? Therefore their masters got to use the existence of these slaves to improve their voice in congress (a voice which was devoted to keeping slaves enslaved).

In what way did the slave states NOT have an advantage, given these facts?

You have used one of the reasons for the electoral college. That is why the Constitution was ratified.

I am waiting for you to give me the number of whites in the southern states and the number of whites in the other states. Then calculate the number of slaves in each multiplied by .6 for congressional representation to 1800.

I don't need to do that. The link I provided in the OP did that calculation. It's clear John Adams, for example, would've won the presidency if not for the 3/5ths clause and the EC in 1800.

 

[GaryDog]

Not saying a vote for Trump was necessarily racist. Just pointing out the origins of the EC. If you take personal offense, that says a lot more about you.

blah blah blah...yawn so sleepy zzzzzzz

Then go sleep, you pathetic asshole. Adults are talking.

You're not an adult. You're a whinging pajamaboi who is barking according to the Loser Prog Dog Whistle.

Nobody believes these ad nauseum accusations of RACISM anymore (except of course, for your fellow diehard moonbats). You've worn out the "deplorable" categories by overusing them against anyone who doesn't agree with your political opinions.

So let me get this straight: You don't think the slaveholders in 18th century America were racist? Or for that matter, ALL of the founding fathers?

Or do you just not understand the point of the OP, and your knee jerks anytime ANYONE mentions race, because, you know, you're actually racist?

 

[Tennyson]

That is not what I asked for to substantiate your claim that the numbers demonstrate that the sourthern states had an electoral advantage over the other states. Can you provide the numbers that the southern states had an electoral advantage over the other states because of the 3/5s clause?

What aren't you getting about this? They had MORE representation than they had citizens. Free states did not. How is that not an advantage for slave states? Did they have a plurality? Is that what you think needs to happen before they have undue influence in Congress, and the EC?

Do you even follow politics at all?

You just justified one of the purposes of the electoral college.

You are still avoiding my question regardless of your sophmoric ad hominem.

I justified a purpose of the EC?

I'm not avoiding any of your questions. I've answered it in full. Right now I believe you have some sort of weird agenda with your questions, in our quest to justify the EC when it's eminently unfair as devised in 1787. You realize slaves couldn't vote, right? Therefore their masters got to use the existence of these slaves to improve their voice in congress (a voice which was devoted to keeping slaves enslaved).

In what way did the slave states NOT have an advantage, given these facts?

You have used one of the reasons for the electoral college. That is why the Constitution was ratified.

I am waiting for you to give me the number of whites in the southern states and the number of whites in the other states. Then calculate the number of slaves in each multiplied by .6 for congressional representation to 1800.

I don't need to do that. The link I provided in the OP did that calculation. It's clear John Adams, for example, would've won the presidency if not for the 3/5ths clause and the EC in 1800.

Nothing was broken down.

Three problems: it is a Vox, it is Akhil Reed Amar, and you are using a proxy argument.

You can either find the 1790 census and break it down as I specified or you cannot. It is that simple.

 

[Tennyson]

Not saying a vote for Trump was necessarily racist. Just pointing out the origins of the EC. If you take personal offense, that says a lot more about you.

blah blah blah...yawn so sleepy zzzzzzz

Then go sleep, you pathetic asshole. Adults are talking.

You're not an adult. You're a whinging pajamaboi who is barking according to the Loser Prog Dog Whistle.

Nobody believes these ad nauseum accusations of RACISM anymore (except of course, for your fellow diehard moonbats). You've worn out the "deplorable" categories by overusing them against anyone who doesn't agree with your political opinions.

So let me get this straight: You don't think the slaveholders in 18th century America were racist? Or for that matter, ALL of the founding fathers?

Or do you just not understand the point of the OP, and your knee jerks anytime ANYONE mentions race, because, you know, you're actually racist?

The fallacy of nunc pro tunc is not going to cut it.

 

[GaryDog]

What aren't you getting about this? They had MORE representation than they had citizens. Free states did not. How is that not an advantage for slave states? Did they have a plurality? Is that what you think needs to happen before they have undue influence in Congress, and the EC?

Do you even follow politics at all?

You just justified one of the purposes of the electoral college.

You are still avoiding my question regardless of your sophmoric ad hominem.

I justified a purpose of the EC?

I'm not avoiding any of your questions. I've answered it in full. Right now I believe you have some sort of weird agenda with your questions, in our quest to justify the EC when it's eminently unfair as devised in 1787. You realize slaves couldn't vote, right? Therefore their masters got to use the existence of these slaves to improve their voice in congress (a voice which was devoted to keeping slaves enslaved).

In what way did the slave states NOT have an advantage, given these facts?

You have used one of the reasons for the electoral college. That is why the Constitution was ratified.

I am waiting for you to give me the number of whites in the southern states and the number of whites in the other states. Then calculate the number of slaves in each multiplied by .6 for congressional representation to 1800.

I don't need to do that. The link I provided in the OP did that calculation. It's clear John Adams, for example, would've won the presidency if not for the 3/5ths clause and the EC in 1800.

Nothing was broken down.

Three problems: it is a Vox, it is Akhil Reed Amar, and you are using a proxy argument.

You can either find the 1790 census and break it down as I specified or you cannot. It is that simple.

Uh, the source is your problem? Do you not have access to other sources? This is common knowledge. 11th grade history.

Electoral College is 'vestige' of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars


Also, did you read the article? It quoted JAMES MADISON HIMSELF.

Proxy argument? lol!