You’re right on that, got my wires crossed. But everything else was correct. It was a compromise for the southern states to count their slaves in electoral weight and it also makes the Republican votes in California and Democrat votes in Alabama meaningless.
Direct election would make them count.
You're confused again.
You're thinking of the 3/5's compromise which was an anti-slavery compromise.
The south wanted to count their slaves in the representation apportionment and the non-slave states compromised on 3/5's.
Direct election would give New York and California all the power and take all the power away from the smaller states.
What reason would Idaho have to want to be ruled by California?
I'm not confused.
Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves, who comprised about 40 percent of its population. During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison said that with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”
Madison knew that the North would outnumber the South, despite there being more than half a million slaves in the South who were their economic vitality, but could not vote. His proposition for the Electoral College included the “three-fifths compromise,” where black people could be counted as three-fifths of a person, instead of a whole. This clause garnered the state 12 out of 91 electoral votes, more than a quarter of what a president needed to win.
The three-fifths compromise was applied to the electoral college. So that people, who had no right to their own lives, nevermind the right to vote, were counted in the electoral college, since the allotment in the electoral college is determined by the number of congress persons representing the state, which of course is determined by the state's population.
elect a king for a republic? How exactly would that make the leader a king? Or our nation a republic?
the most votes shouldn't win elections?
majority rule isn't a key part democracy and isn't worth supporting?
Why can't a bunch of small states band together to outvote their urban brothers and sisters? And if they can't do that, why should they get to rule anyway?
The senate is a weird one. We didn't originally elect senators...state legislators chose them. So you have a point that the senate was originally meant to be an anti-democracy body. But then we changed it into another piece of democracy. And we have to go with what the Constitution says NOW, not what it said 200 years ago.
The USA isn't a Democracy...
Dumb dumb dumb
you need to get more familiar with an item called a dictionary. It’s real, I promise. It tells you, get this, the definition of words. You will be shocked!
They created the Electoral College as a compromise due to pressure from southern states who wanted to include their non-voting slaves in their electoral power. Hamilton, on the other hand, favored direct election.
The system needs to go. In practice, it renders the majority of the country’s votes as meaningless. A Republican in California may as well skip the presidential vote, just as a Democrat in Alabama. A popular vote for president would make all votes count equally and end the pandering we see today to the handful of swing states.
Dems love to whine about losing the election even though they win the popular vote. How about we just eliminate the Senate while we are at it and we can just have a king based on the popular vote so that a handful of heavily populated states can determine policy for the rest of the country?
How much disproportionate power should the low populated states have? When the constitution was adopted, Virginia's population was 21 times that of Delaware. Today, California has 67 times the population of Wyoming.
You're thinking of the 3/5's compromise which was an anti-slavery compromise.
The south wanted to count their slaves in the representation apportionment and the non-slave states compromised on 3/5's.
Direct election would give New York and California all the power and take all the power away from the smaller states.
What reason would Idaho have to want to be ruled by California?
I'm not confused.
Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves, who comprised about 40 percent of its population. During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison said that with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”
Madison knew that the North would outnumber the South, despite there being more than half a million slaves in the South who were their economic vitality, but could not vote. His proposition for the Electoral College included the “three-fifths compromise,” where black people could be counted as three-fifths of a person, instead of a whole. This clause garnered the state 12 out of 91 electoral votes, more than a quarter of what a president needed to win.
The three-fifths compromise was applied to the electoral college. So that people, who had no right to their own lives, nevermind the right to vote, were counted in the electoral college, since the allotment in the electoral college is determined by the number of congress persons representing the state, which of course is determined by the state's population.
The slave holders wanted to count slaves as full citizens. The 3/5's compromise reduced the representation the slave states wanted.
The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy.
"One fundamental principle of a constitutional republic is the protection of minority rights against the potential tyranny of the majority. This design counters direct democracy, where majority rules could potentially ride roughshod over minority interests. The U.S. Constitution outlines various checks and balances intended to prevent any single branch of government from gaining absolute power, thereby protecting individual rights from being infringed upon by majority vote."
The founders never intended for small states to be subject to the tyranny of states like California, Illinois, and New York.
The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy.
"One fundamental principle of a constitutional republic is the protection of minority rights against the potential tyranny of the majority. This design counters direct democracy, where majority rules could potentially ride roughshod over minority interests. The U.S. Constitution outlines various checks and balances intended to prevent any single branch of government from gaining absolute power, thereby protecting individual rights from being infringed upon by majority vote."
The founders never intended for small states to be subject to the tyranny of states like California, Illinois, and New York.
The three-fifths compromise was applied to the electoral college. So that people, who had no right to their own lives, nevermind the right to vote, were counted in the electoral college, since the allotment in the electoral college is determined by the number of congress persons representing the state, which of course is determined by the state's population.
The slave holders wanted to count slaves as full citizens. The 3/5's compromise reduced the representation the slave states wanted.
You’re not getting it.
scenario 1: no electoral college, direct election by the president
how many slaves will vote for president? Zero, because they not allowed to.
scenario 2: we have the Electoral College, and those votes are based on the number the congressional reps a state has, which is based on the population. The south wanted all of the slaves to count toward that (even though none of them could vote), the north didn’t want any of them to count and they settled on 60%.
It gave more power to the slave owning states versus direct election because the 140,000 Black men in bondage in Virginia weren’t going to show up on election day in any case, but now 60% of them count towards Virginia’s votes in the presidential election.
The slave holders wanted to count slaves as full citizens. The 3/5's compromise reduced the representation the slave states wanted.
You’re not getting it.
scenario 1: no electoral college, direct election by the president
how many slaves will vote for president? Zero, because they not allowed to.
scenario 2: we have the Electoral College, and those votes are based on the number the congressional reps a state has, which is based on the population. The south wanted all of the slaves to count toward that (even though none of them could vote), the north didn’t want any of them to count and they settled on 60%.
It gave more power to the slave owning states versus direct election because the 140,000 Black men in bondage in Virginia weren’t going to show up on election day in any case, but now 60% of them count towards Virginia’s votes in the presidential election.
You're not getting it.
scenario 1: the slave states refuse to join the republic.
scenario 2: the slave states get to count 3/5's of their slaves as citizens and as a result of the compromise they join the republic.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
scenario 1: no electoral college, direct election by the president
how many slaves will vote for president? Zero, because they not allowed to.
scenario 2: we have the Electoral College, and those votes are based on the number the congressional reps a state has, which is based on the population. The south wanted all of the slaves to count toward that (even though none of them could vote), the north didn’t want any of them to count and they settled on 60%.
It gave more power to the slave owning states versus direct election because the 140,000 Black men in bondage in Virginia weren’t going to show up on election day in any case, but now 60% of them count towards Virginia’s votes in the presidential election.
You're not getting it.
scenario 1: the slave states refuse to join the republic.
scenario 2: the slave gets get to count 3/5's of their slaves as citizens and as a result of the compromise they join the republic.
scenario 1: no electoral college, direct election by the president
how many slaves will vote for president? Zero, because they not allowed to.
scenario 2: we have the Electoral College, and those votes are based on the number the congressional reps a state has, which is based on the population. The south wanted all of the slaves to count toward that (even though none of them could vote), the north didn’t want any of them to count and they settled on 60%.
It gave more power to the slave owning states versus direct election because the 140,000 Black men in bondage in Virginia weren’t going to show up on election day in any case, but now 60% of them count towards Virginia’s votes in the presidential election.
You're not getting it.
scenario 1: the slave states refuse to join the republic.
scenario 2: the slave gets get to count 3/5's of their slaves as citizens and as a result of the compromise they join the republic.
Southern states have lower IQs than normal American states.
The Biden Administration has weaponized federal agents against Sean Combs. He is in habeas corpus custody. He will be prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
You were previous busted for lying about spokepersons for district attorney's offices in New York. That was at Post # 13248 on Page # 663 ("the spokesman for Bragg's office admitted"). Then you doubled down on the lie at Post #13271 on Page # 664. This was one of your weirder lies, because they very article you linked and lied about refuted your lie.
scenario 1: no electoral college, direct election by the president
how many slaves will vote for president? Zero, because they not allowed to.
scenario 2: we have the Electoral College, and those votes are based on the number the congressional reps a state has, which is based on the population. The south wanted all of the slaves to count toward that (even though none of them could vote), the north didn’t want any of them to count and they settled on 60%.
It gave more power to the slave owning states versus direct election because the 140,000 Black men in bondage in Virginia weren’t going to show up on election day in any case, but now 60% of them count towards Virginia’s votes in the presidential election.
You're not getting it.
scenario 1: the slave states refuse to join the republic.
scenario 2: the slave states get to count 3/5's of their slaves as citizens and as a result of the compromise they join the republic.
And what did they get? Disproportionate power relative to their voting population, which is why the southern states wanted the Electoral College and not direct election of the president. Not only did they have more representatives in Congress than than they would have otherwise, they now had more sway in electing the president because those slaves are counting towards the Electoral College while they wouldn’t have in direct election.
scenario 1: the slave states refuse to join the republic.
scenario 2: the slave states get to count 3/5's of their slaves as citizens and as a result of the compromise they join the republic.
And what did they get? Disproportionate power relative to their voting population, which is why the southern states wanted the Electoral College and not direct election of the president. Not only did they have more representatives in Congress than than they would have otherwise, they now had more sway in electing the president because those slaves are counting towards the Electoral College while they wouldn’t have in direct election.
You're confused again.
The Electoral College was proposed by James Wilson of Pennsylvania not James Madison.
And what did they get? Disproportionate power relative to their voting population, which is why the southern states wanted the Electoral College and not direct election of the president. Not only did they have more representatives in Congress than than they would have otherwise, they now had more sway in electing the president because those slaves are counting towards the Electoral College while they wouldn’t have in direct election.
You're confused again.
The Electoral College was proposed by James Wilson of Pennsylvania not James Madison.
Did Madison want to have his slaves count towards Virginia’s power in Congress and in electing the President? Did it give Virginia and its voters more sway in electing the President compared to direct election?
You can say yes and not dance around that fact that the Electoral College gave more voting power to the slave owning states compared a system of direct election.
Sorry trumpers, Harris is taking PA and there is nothing you can do about it. You failed women and now they want you gone.
"All three surveys indicated that a widening gender gap that benefits Harris is fueling her overall advantage over Trump."
"This is female-gender advantage on steroids," Suffolk University Political Research director Dave Paleologos told Fox News. "In all three data sets, the women margin is around almost twice Trump's edge among men."
They created the Electoral College as a compromise due to pressure from southern states who wanted to include their non-voting slaves in their electoral power. Hamilton, on the other hand, favored direct election.
The system needs to go. In practice, it renders the majority of the country’s votes as meaningless. A Republican in California may as well skip the presidential vote, just as a Democrat in Alabama. A popular vote for president would make all votes count equally and end the pandering we see today to the handful of swing states.
Dems love to whine about losing the election even though they win the popular vote. How about we just eliminate the Senate while we are at it and we can just have a king based on the popular vote so that a handful of heavily populated states can determine policy for the rest of the country?
What a ret@rt post... making it based on the popular vote would do exactly that - eliminate the problem of states having any bearing on POTUS selection. The only fair system to pick a president is one in which every vote has the same weight.
Sorry trumpers, Harris is taking PA and there is nothing you can do about it. You failed women and now they want you gone.
"All three surveys indicated that a widening gender gap that benefits Harris is fueling her overall advantage over Trump."
"This is female-gender advantage on steroids," Suffolk University Political Research director Dave Paleologos told Fox News. "In all three data sets, the women margin is around almost twice Trump's edge among men."
scenario 1: no electoral college, direct election by the president
how many slaves will vote for president? Zero, because they not allowed to.
scenario 2: we have the Electoral College, and those votes are based on the number the congressional reps a state has, which is based on the population. The south wanted all of the slaves to count toward that (even though none of them could vote), the north didn’t want any of them to count and they settled on 60%.
It gave more power to the slave owning states versus direct election because the 140,000 Black men in bondage in Virginia weren’t going to show up on election day in any case, but now 60% of them count towards Virginia’s votes in the presidential election.
You're not getting it.
scenario 1: the slave states refuse to join the republic.
scenario 2: the slave states get to count 3/5's of their slaves as citizens and as a result of the compromise they join the republic.
