neverfail wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:29 pm
cassowary wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:43 pm
I think the reason for the electoral college was not because of slavery. It was because of the distrust of democracy by the majority of the Founding Fathers.
A significant number of whom, including Jefferson, Madison and Washington, were slave owners from Virginia. Enough said!
(That type would have viewed even non-property owning free white working class people as only one jump above slaves and well beneath themselves in social status.)
I don't think their distrust for democracy came from their snooty attitude as you implied. Their distrust of democracy, as I said, was because they felt that the majority of Americans at that time, were illiterate and lack reliable information of what was going on in faraway Washington. As I said, there was no internet, TV or radio in those days. Newspapers were few and most can't read anyway. Don't you think the Founding Fathers were right to distrust democracy?
Electing the President by popular vote would have meant allowing uninformed, uneducated people to choose the chief executive of the USA. Under the circumstances prevailing in 1789, I would say the FF were right. To do otherwise would have been folly.
cassowary wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:43 pm The South wanted to include their slave population
so that they will get more representatives in the House or Representatives. In the end, they compromised. Each slave would be counted as 3/5 of a white person.
No they did NOT want to include them in the voting process (if this is what you are suggesting)! The slaves were not allowed to vote (as you correctly point out) and had no say in how their "votes" were used. Instead the slave owners got to vote in the name of their slaves - which meant that they voted for whoever they wanted, not the way their slaves might have wanted them to vote.
It meant if a slave owner in Virginia or South Carolina (for instance) owned 5 slaves he got to cast 3 additional votes on election day in addition to the vote he was entitled to cast as a white property owner. A total of 4 votes. By contrast a non-slave owning freeman in New York state or New England if he qualified as a voter was only entitled to cast but one vote.
If you cannot by now see how this was a gigantic gerrymander to favour the southern states (and in particular their elites of slave owning wealthy planters) then you must be utterly devoid of imagination.
I think you misunderstood. Every Southern voter got one vote - same as the Northern voter. Now let me explain with a hypothetical example. Suppose a northern state had a population of 100,000 people and a southern slave owning state had a population of 100,000 people.
So, fairness demands that both states should have the same number of Congressmen for the House of Representative. Let's say the number is 10 for each state. So each Congressman represents 10,000 people in his district. But the Northerners then said,"Not so fast. Out of your 100,000 people in your Southern state, 50,000 are slaves. They can't vote. So you should only get 5 representatives.
The Southerners then replied, "But the slaves do productive work. They produce cotton which were sold to Europe. So they contribute to the prosperity of the USA. So we demand 10 representatives."
In the end, each slave counted for 3/5 of a white. This was a compromise. So in this hypothetical example, that Southern state would have ended up with 8 representatives (or what you call MPs).
Do you understand now? Where did you get the idea that a Southern voter could end up with more than one vote? It was all about the number of Representatives or what you call MPs.
In any case, this had nothing to do with the electoral college.
(...and yes Cassowary, I am aware that there was not a single country on earth in those days that chose government via a voting mandate of universal adult suffrage. That did not make the 1789 US electoral college set-up as anything less than a gerrymander designed to vest political power in the hands of one particular select group of people. )
Do you think the Northerners would have agreed to giving the South an electoral advantage? No. In fact, each side was jockeying for power. Each side was trying to get more Congressmen to represent them. Neither side wanted to be dominated by the other. So it did not happen. Again, let me repeat that the electoral college did not give the South any electoral advantage.