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

[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.

Interesting opinion, however you have no proof.

Why the Electoral College

The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org

You got any proof, no but at least now you can claim racism as you nutters always do when you have nothing else, however the act is getting old and most people are wise to your game.

The proof is the simple fact of the matter. The slave states got the most benefit from the electoral college.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Interesting opinion, however you have no proof.

Why the Electoral College

The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org

You got any proof, no but at least now you can claim racism as you nutters always do when you have nothing else, however the act is getting old and most people are wise to your game.

The proof is the simple fact of the matter. The slave states got the most benefit from the electoral college.

That may have been true however you have no proof that it was because of slavery or because of racism. I do realize your need to fit racism into the agenda to give the Dems the power you want them to have. Good luck!

 

[Divine Wind]

The proof is the simple fact of the matter. The slave states got the most benefit from the electoral college.

Another simple fact of the matter is there'd have been on United States of America with 13 states without the 3/5ths compromise. Most likely there were have been a handful of economic alliances, some of which would probably have gone back to Britain or become part of Canada. The good news is that there would have been no Civil War because there would have been no Union to save. OTOH, there might have been a few states fighting each other.

 

[paperview]

Your right to be wrong is not under dispute.

Your ability to say what is wrong is in question. Your ability to be wrong on the other hand, is undisputed.

You've offered nothing to prove me wrong.

You refuse to even contemplate what is offered.

I provided a set of historical facts. They prove that contrary to conventional wisdom, the formation of the electoral college did NOT benefit small states to any degree comparable to the degree it benefited the slave states.

The fact that each state has 2 senate related votes regardless of population pokes a hole in your argument from the start.

There were 138 electoral college votes up for grabs in the election of 1800.

We had 16 states back then, 32 of the senators from each state were represented in the EC.

The balance?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The proof is the simple fact of the matter. The slave states got the most benefit from the electoral college.

Another simple fact of the matter is there'd have been on United States of America with 13 states without the 3/5ths compromise. Most likely there were have been a handful of economic alliances, some of which would probably have gone back to Britain or become part of Canada. The good news is that there would have been no Civil War because there would have been no Union to save. OTOH, there might have been a few states fighting each other.

Is the 3/5ths compromise still in place?

 

[paperview]

"The result of [the 1800] election was affected by the three-fifths clause of the United States Constitution, by which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of Congressional apportionment.

Historians such as Gary Wills, Leonard L. Richards, and William W. Freehling have written that had slaves not been counted at all, Adams would have won the electoral vote.

Adams had never owned a slave and was opposed to slavery, while Jefferson was an avowed slave owner. Jefferson was subsequently criticized as having won "the temple of Liberty on the shoulders of slaves". Arguing that the election was a turning point in American history, Akhil Reed Amar, a law and political science professor at Yale argued that "in a direct election system, the South would have lost every time."

United States presidential election, 1800 - Wikipedia

Instead, what happened was the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history.

& Every single president, with the exception of two (from the North, the Adams') until 1850 - was a slaveowner.

 

[Divine Wind]

The proof is the simple fact of the matter. The slave states got the most benefit from the electoral college.

Another simple fact of the matter is there'd have been on United States of America with 13 states without the 3/5ths compromise. Most likely there were have been a handful of economic alliances, some of which would probably have gone back to Britain or become part of Canada. The good news is that there would have been no Civil War because there would have been no Union to save. OTOH, there might have been a few states fighting each other.

Is the 3/5ths compromise still in place?

It's still in the Constitution but negated by the 13th Amendment. How does this support your argument that the United States would have been formed without it?

 

[Divine Wind]

...Instead, what happened was the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history....

Because it had more Senators (regardless of the 3/5ths compromise) or do you mean the House?

What do you think would have happened to the Constitution without the compromise?

 

[paperview]

...Instead, what happened was the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history....

Because it had more Senators (regardless of the 3/5ths compromise) or do you mean the House?

What do you think would have happened to the Constitution without the compromise?

The South dominated because it had more senators? Waa? What do the number of EC votes represent?

2. Any idea why every single president, with the exception of two (from the North, the Adams') until 1850 - was a slaveowner?

"What do you think would have happened to the Constitution without the compromise?"

We wouldn't have had a Constitution without the compromise.

As I stated earlier: It was a dirty compromise - but a necessary one 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 actual representation. They used their slaves as hostages to the negotiation.

 

[paperview]

On that first election of the 19th Century:

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Seek help

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Your being uninformed does not count as a "real reason"

 

[westwall]

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've already bitchslapped your BS at least twice, so here is another one doofus.... Below are links to the Federalist Papers in the Library of Congress. Read the words asshat, they're big words, complicated, but, unlike you, our Founders were well educated men.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty."

The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -


"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -

 

[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.

I've already bitchslapped your BS at least twice, so here is another one doofus.... Below are links to the Federalist Papers in the Library of Congress. Read the words asshat, they're big words, complicated, but, unlike you, our Founders were well educated men.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty."

The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -


"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -

Watch your language.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said. Learn to read.

 

[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.

Your being uninformed does not count as a "real reason"

Is that what passes for a rebuttal in conservatopia?

 

[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.

Seek help

Is that what passes for a rebuttal at the shelter?

 

[westwall]

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've already bitchslapped your BS at least twice, so here is another one doofus.... Below are links to the Federalist Papers in the Library of Congress. Read the words asshat, they're big words, complicated, but, unlike you, our Founders were well educated men.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty."

The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -


"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

The Federalist Papers - Congress.gov Resources -

Watch your language.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said. Learn to read.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the BS you asserted. Your claim is shit. It has been shit, and it will always be shit. This has been shown to you on repeated occasions yet you insist on trotting out this trope as if it is meaningful. So you watch YOUR language asshat. It's you who are offensive in this thread.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Your being uninformed does not count as a "real reason"

Is that what passes for a rebuttal in conservatopia?

All you have is an opinion, not based on facts. How does your opinion pass as a fact? I asked you to back up your reasons and you have not.

 

[paperview]

The view of one of the country's top Constitutional scholars and historian (The Supreme Court has cited his work in over thirty cases.), Akhil Amar:

<snip>"...But the real divisions in America have never been big and small states; they're between North and South, and between coasts and the center.

The House versus Senate is big versus small state, but from the beginning big states have almost always prevailed in the Electoral College. We've only had three small-state presidents in American history: Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, and Bill Clinton. All of the early presidents came from big states. So that theory isn't particularly explanatory.

<snip>

So what's the real answer? In my view, it's slavery. 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."

Carb is in good company.

 

[westwall]

The view of one of the country's top Constitutional scholars and historian (The Supreme Court has cited his work in over thirty cases.), Akhil Amar:

<snip>"...But the real divisions in America have never been big and small states; they're between North and South, and between coasts and the center.

The House versus Senate is big versus small state, but from the beginning big states have almost always prevailed in the Electoral College. We've only had three small-state presidents in American history: Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, and Bill Clinton. All of the early presidents came from big states. So that theory isn't particularly explanatory.

<snip>

So what's the real answer? In my view, it's slavery. 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."

Carb is in good company.

Carb is in the company of one mans OPINION. The facts are there for everyone to read in the Federalist papers. They refute this mans OPINION.