The 3/5ths compromise had almost no impact on party power. Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The abolitionists didn't want slaves counted so the slave-owners would have less representation. The slave owners wanted all slaves counted so they would gain greater representation. The 3/5's compromise was a way to do it that still kept the southern states underrepresented, yet made them "feel better". And this has nothing to do with the modern House of Representatives, the modern Electoral College, or who can vote regarding how. FFS.

https://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm

About one third of the South's population in 1860 were black slaves. Counting them for the apportionment of political power while they were disenfranchised in reality meant that the voting power of white Southerners was inflated, a Southern voter effectively held significantly higher voting power in Congress and presidential elections than a white Northerner.

He is agreeing with your assessment, and I wasn't really arguing that point.

ok.. bob and I went down a rabbit hole last night.. I probably could of steered that better.
My point is the idea of the EC has been in dispute, argued upon since its inception.. even when its been a race issue. ALL I was trying to state.
yea I used the 3/5's as a debate point, and we got side tracked into all sorts of shit.. My issue is I think there are better ways to count votes in the US people get so discouraged they don't even vote when they live in a one sided state IE CA or WV

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Sep 25 2020 08:05am

simple question, if we changed overnight to a national popular vote and ditched the EC, out of the next 10 presidential elections how many would you expect the democrats to win. and followup, if we hold the EC how many?

to your first question I would assume D win 85% of the elections in straight popular vote..
I don't know if straight popular vote is really the answer.. too influenced by popularity. *** shooting off the top of my head here. I really don't have a perfect answer but like I quoted some polls.. There have been times when R also feel like the EC isn't in their best interest. It feels like whoever is on the outside get too little say. EITHER SIDE

thanks for answering, and for not being one of the "popular vote is needed, also we'll win them all".

that's my gripe, other people want to end the EC and go popular vote, but also think/know this would result in democrat presidents for decades to come. just reads as gross, like "lets lower the hoop so i can dunk and win all of the games". yuck.

Seems like when the state territories are the winner take all, it eliminates all opposite voting paths in ea state.. Living in WA its a COMPLETE waste of time to vote R.
Same with like WY, if your a D stay home and save yourself the drive etc. Not very much incentive to vote

The entire window would shift black (black as in destructionist, nothing to do with identity politics :P). Buying votes would be key. Once you buy votes so that you can tax for power and personal gain, the only reliable source of income is your vote.

I don't want the United States to become Venezuela.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 25 2020 08:38am

i had this same conversation a week or so ago. it's a trade off.

if you have the EC states like Montana or North Dakota can and should vote, they get EC votes even if they're small in number.

if you have popular vote they shouldn't bother, by and large, as their entire population is 1/4 of just LA county.

North Dakota has 700kish people, Montana 1m, LA has 4m.

so you trade the minority votes in a non-battle ground state for entire states. you also then eliminate representation for the norms there. I feel for southern minority populations in deep red states, i feel for conservatives in deeply blue states, but i also dont want entire states invalidated.

The big issue I see with moving to a national popular vote is that it would shift the campaign focus completely to the big urban metros. Yes, you would suddenly have both nominees holding rallies in San Francisco, Dallas, Seattle or Boston - but at the same time, the exurbs and rural regions would receive even less attention than they do now. Would the campaigns really bother making a stop in Ohio or Iowa anymore?


Btw, LA county has a population of 10 million, not 4.8