7 ms·

Untrue, the South was more populous than the North during the ratification of the Constitution -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territor

by bhupy 6y ago

Untrue, the South was more populous than the North during the ratification of the Constitution -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_historical_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... In fact, it was the slave owning southern states that wanted the Senate to be apportioned proportionally, rather than equally (this was the Virginia Plan). The Virginia Plan created a two-chamber legislature with proportional representation based on population. The New Jersey Plan would have allocated one member of Congress to each state. The Connecticut Compromise that led to the current allocation received buy-in from both slave and non-slave states, because it was about small vs large states, which were present in both sides. The population advantage of the South was the impetus behind the infamous "three fifths compromise". The 3/5 compromise was designed to reduce the interest of slave-holding states in Congress as well as the elections.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago
The South had more people, but far fewer voters (partially because of slavery, partially because they had more restrictive rules even for white males). The Senate was done for small states, but the Electoral College was definitely invented to appease the South.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > but the Electoral College was definitely invented to appease the South No it wasn’t. Under both the Northern proposed New Jersey Plan as well as the Southern proposed Virginia Plan, the President would have actually been elected by Congress. There were concerns that having Congress elect the President would jeopardize separation of powers. So the Electoral College was created, with one elector for each member of Congress. It had nothing to do with protecting the interests of slave-holding states, but instead was designed to make the Presidency more independent of Congress. The fact that the President would be elected by States as opposed to people directly was uncontroversial. What was controversial was whether the apportionment of those votes should be proportional to the population (where both chambers of Congress had proportional votes) or whether it should be the degressive proportionality that we have today (where the upper house has equal representation). The slave-states wanted the former, not the latter, owing to their population advantage. Also, degressive proportionality as a concept is fairly uncontroversial in the context of Federal electoral systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality It’s what’s used to allocate seats in the European Parliament, who vote to elect the President of the European Commission, who is the Head of Government of the EU. In many ways, the structure of the EU is identical to that of the US, especially prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment.

by bhupy 6y ago

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

The South had more people, but far fewer voters (partially because of slavery, partially because they had more restrictive rules even for white males). The Senate was done for small states, but the Electoral College was definitely invented to appease the South.

bhupy 6y ago
> but the Electoral College was definitely invented to appease the South No it wasn’t. Under both the Northern proposed New Jersey Plan as well as the Southern proposed Virginia Plan, the President would have actually been elected by Congress. There were concerns that having Congress elect the President would jeopardize separation of powers. So the Electoral College was created, with one elector for each member of Congress. It had nothing to do with protecting the interests of slave-holding states, but instead was designed to make the Presidency more independent of Congress. The fact that the President would be elected by States as opposed to people directly was uncontroversial. What was controversial was whether the apportionment of those votes should be proportional to the population (where both chambers of Congress had proportional votes) or whether it should be the degressive proportionality that we have today (where the upper house has equal representation). The slave-states wanted the former, not the latter, owing to their population advantage. Also, degressive proportionality as a concept is fairly uncontroversial in the context of Federal electoral systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality It’s what’s used to allocate seats in the European Parliament, who vote to elect the President of the European Commission, who is the Head of Government of the EU. In many ways, the structure of the EU is identical to that of the US, especially prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment.