The electoral college votes was the sum of total number of Representatives plus 2. The two was for the two senators from each state. So the 3/5 rule did affect the number of electoral college vote. As we now both seem to agree, the 3/5 rule was a compromise between north and south. The south wanted the slaves to be counted in full initially while the north wanted slaves not to be counted at all.neverfail wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:46 am( sigh!)cassowary wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:10 pmBut my explanation for the original reasons for the Electoral College (illiteracy and lack of communications) still stands because it was not refuted. That was what started out the whole chain of messages. The rest was getting you to understand how the 3/5 rule came about. I hope you finally understand that.
I will own up to one earlier mistake. In an earlier post I believed (wrongly) that the "three fifth compromise" referred to popular votes when it in fact refers to the number of electoral college votes awarded to each state . Same difference! The deal padded the southern slave states with enough additional electoral college votes to ensure that when the president elected was not a white southerner (like Jefferson, Madison or Andrew Jackson) then (like Van Buren) he would be a "tame" northerner who would know better than to try to take on the power of the southern plantation lobby.https://www.history.com/news/electoral- ... convention
“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States,” said Madison, “and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”
The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which black slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia, home to more than 200,000 slaves, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes required to win the presidency (46).
It was a gerrymander whose purpose was to direct power into the hands to one particular sectional interest.
All of the other supportive arguments were bullshit.
That plantation lobby might have been wiped out during their Civil War but it still does not mean that the electoral college system produces fair results even today. The reason lies with tampering by the states. Those state "winner take all" laws ensure that the pro-rata of popular votes cast is NOT reflected in the pro-rata of electoral college votes for the presidential candidates.https://www.history.com/news/electoral- ... convention
And even more important, the Constitution says nothing about how the states should allot their electoral votes. The assumption was that each elector’s vote would be counted. But over time, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) passed laws to give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote count. Any semblance of elector independence has been fully wiped out.
I do not see what the election of a Federal government have to do with the states anyhow. The states by now should have been compelled to butt out. If Federal elections in Australia can be conducted by an independent electoral commission without any influence or input by our states then I do not see why they cannot do it in the USA as well.
There is no excuse!
Of course, the states had to have a say in how the President was elected. If the state did not agree on this important matter, the state would not join the union.