6 ms·

> and would make the electoral college much more fair and balanced as originally intended. That was not originally intended, in addition to not trusting the pe

> and would make the electoral college much more fair and balanced as originally intended. That was not originally intended, in addition to not trusting the people to directly elect leaders the electoral college was intended to give smaller states more power than they would have as a result of their population size alone. This was part of the deal, and it made the union agreeable to smaller states. If you wanna back out of the deal, it seems only fair to give any states that want to a chance to back out of the union.

belltaco 7y ago
What were the population differences between the small and large states back then compared to now?
undersuit 7y ago
>the electoral college was intended to give smaller states more power than they would have as a result of their population size alone. Thanks to the 3/5's compromise...
- TMWNN 7y ago
  The Three Fifths Compromise had nothing to do with the Electoral College. Slave states gained more power in the Electoral College from the extra 3/5 votes, but a) the compromise itself had nothing to do with the Electoral College's creation or design, and b) 3/5 of a vote gave less power to slave states than their preference, a full vote for each slave.
  - undersuit 7y ago
    >the compromise itself had nothing to do with the Electoral College's creation or design Then what were they compromising on? The formation and continuation of the US Government. Without the compromise there is no Electoral College.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      That's not true at all. The 3/5s compromise affected the resulting balance of power, but the system itself was about preventing any one state from dominating the federal government. (New York was the concern at the time.) Even if slavery didn't exist, the small state / big state dynamic still required a mechanism to balance the voting power between states. (This is often referred to as the Connecticut compromise.)
- bch132 7y ago
  Would you have preferred 0/5ths or 5/5ths?
  - undersuit 7y ago
    I'd have preferred we not have slaves.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I'd also have preferred no slaves. But "0/5ths" for slaves would have been consistent with them being slaves. It's not like they were 60% free.

belltaco 7y ago

What were the population differences between the small and large states back then compared to now?

undersuit 7y ago

>the electoral college was intended to give smaller states more power than they would have as a result of their population size alone. Thanks to the 3/5's compromise...

TMWNN 7y ago
The Three Fifths Compromise had nothing to do with the Electoral College. Slave states gained more power in the Electoral College from the extra 3/5 votes, but a) the compromise itself had nothing to do with the Electoral College's creation or design, and b) 3/5 of a vote gave less power to slave states than their preference, a full vote for each slave.
- undersuit 7y ago
  >the compromise itself had nothing to do with the Electoral College's creation or design Then what were they compromising on? The formation and continuation of the US Government. Without the compromise there is no Electoral College.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    That's not true at all. The 3/5s compromise affected the resulting balance of power, but the system itself was about preventing any one state from dominating the federal government. (New York was the concern at the time.) Even if slavery didn't exist, the small state / big state dynamic still required a mechanism to balance the voting power between states. (This is often referred to as the Connecticut compromise.)
bch132 7y ago
Would you have preferred 0/5ths or 5/5ths?
- undersuit 7y ago
  I'd have preferred we not have slaves.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I'd also have preferred no slaves. But "0/5ths" for slaves would have been consistent with them being slaves. It's not like they were 60% free.