3 ms·

It goes back much further than that, literally to the founding of the country. Our constitution has provisions specifically protecting the slave trade. The way

It goes back much further than that, literally to the founding of the country. Our constitution has provisions specifically protecting the slave trade. The way we elect our president was designed specifically to give slave owners more power. Racism is an integral part of US history and always has been. You literally cannot make sense of US history without it.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Slavery goes back a lot further than the founding of the US, and is important context for broad swaths of History. Regarding the election of the president, I assume you're talking about the 3/5 compromise. I think this had the opposite impact of what you're claiming. It gave white male voters in the south less power. Representation based on total human population would have given them more. If you were voting white male in the North, your representation was based on the total population of your state, including those that cant vote, i.e. women and children. In the south, your total population for the purposes of proportional representation was reduced lower than the total human population of your state
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  Not so. The 3/5 rule and the Electoral College gave slaveholders drastically more power than they should have had. If the president was elected strictly based on votes cast, the North would have dominated every election. Not only did the South have completely disenfranchised slaves who nevertheless added to their masters electoral votes, but they also had much more limited franchise even for white males. The constitution was set up to let the South prevent the vast majority of their people from voting without giving up much political power as a result.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Neither of this North nor the South supported proportional representation based on both votes cast. Your assertion that the 3/5 compromise the South more electoral power begs the question in comparison to what alternative. If you're hypothetical is that became more power than the number of Voters, then sure. But no one at the time was advocating for proportional representation based on the number of men in the state. Nobody supported the vast majority of people voting. The Electoral College was never based on voter numbers.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Slavery goes back a lot further than the founding of the US, and is important context for broad swaths of History. Regarding the election of the president, I assume you're talking about the 3/5 compromise. I think this had the opposite impact of what you're claiming. It gave white male voters in the south less power. Representation based on total human population would have given them more. If you were voting white male in the North, your representation was based on the total population of your state, including those that cant vote, i.e. women and children. In the south, your total population for the purposes of proportional representation was reduced lower than the total human population of your state

TheCoelacanth 3y ago
Not so. The 3/5 rule and the Electoral College gave slaveholders drastically more power than they should have had. If the president was elected strictly based on votes cast, the North would have dominated every election. Not only did the South have completely disenfranchised slaves who nevertheless added to their masters electoral votes, but they also had much more limited franchise even for white males. The constitution was set up to let the South prevent the vast majority of their people from voting without giving up much political power as a result.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Neither of this North nor the South supported proportional representation based on both votes cast. Your assertion that the 3/5 compromise the South more electoral power begs the question in comparison to what alternative. If you're hypothetical is that became more power than the number of Voters, then sure. But no one at the time was advocating for proportional representation based on the number of men in the state. Nobody supported the vast majority of people voting. The Electoral College was never based on voter numbers.