> "Let's not even talk about just what part of our society would have a real vote and which part would have 3/5 of one." There was never any individual who had

> "Let's not even talk about just what part of our society would have a real vote and which part would have 3/5 of one." There was never any individual who had a 3/5 vote; this is a misconception. Slaves were not allowed to vote at all. Instead, they were counted as 3/5 of a person on the census, which was used to distribute seats in the House and electoral votes. Slave owners wanted slaves to be counted as full people, which would have increased the south's political power. Those opposed to slavery wanted slaves to not be counted, thereby decreasing the south's political power. Those who complain that slaves were "only" counted as 3/5 of a person are (accidentally) making a statement in favor of increasing the power of slave owners. > "the two party system is meant to make government more agile and less risk averse." Far from it. The system with two chambers of Congress plus an executive is meant to create gridlock. It's meant to prevent a small majority from being able to ram through an agenda. As a result of the 3/5 compromise, the South usually had an edge in the House of Representatives and in electing the President, but the North had an edge in the Senate, and therefore neither side could pass slavery-related legislation. This was intentional. The US legislative system is designed to make it difficult to pass laws without extremely broad support, because the founding fathers (despite all their flaws) recognized how dangerous it would be if a narrow edge in population could be transformed into a huge edge in legislative power.