• chaogomu
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    It is unneeded in the modern era.

    The electoral college didn’t shift power to slave states. That was the 3/5ths compromise.

    No, the electoral college was created because the fastest way to travel in the 1780s was via foot. There weren’t even good roads between the new states. So it could take months to get from Georgia to Washington, DC.

    We don’t have that problem anymore, but changing things like that would require a constitutional amendment. Something that is fairly hard to do in today’s political climate.

    And it still wouldn’t fix the problem with the House not being representative. But one act of congress to repeal the permanent apportionment act of 1929 would fix both issues.

    Massively expanding the size of the House would make it representative, and it would make the electoral college better represent the populations of each state.

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It sure did shift power to the slave states. The Senate gives equal power to each state, regardless of population. That’s why, as states were allowed to join the union, they were done for quite some time in pairs - one slave, one free - in order to maintain a balance in the Senate.

      • chaogomu
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        You’re mixing two different things and not quite understanding history.

        The House and the Senate are very different things, and together they add up to the electoral college.

        The electoral college was created for one reason and one reason alone. To allow people to actually vote in a national election when the fastest way to get from one end of the country to the other was via footpath.

        The Senate was actually a check on the power of the slave states, as was the 3/5ths compromise.

        Although, the northern states were also slave states at the time the constitution was signed. People often forget that fact.

        The problems with slavery were painfully obvious, even then, but rich white guys wanted to own people. This lead to even more problems as the North slowly banned slavery. But that’s a different section in the history book.

        • Nougat
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          I’m sorry, but you have this completely backwards.

          Yes, I am aware of how the electoral college works, and what the House and Senate are. I have been voting since 1988. Specifically because the electoral college votes from a particular state include those granted by having two senators, low population states’ popular vote carries more weight in electing a president (and vice president). I may have worded that badly before, I hope that was clearer.

          The three-fifths compromise made it so that, for purposes of counting population, to decide how many representatives in the House a state had, every five slaves were to count as three persons. This gave the southern states a huge boost of power in the House - because slaves got counted to find out how many representatives they had, even though those slaves were in every other way property, with few rights, certainly not the right to vote in the elections for the reps their number served to create seats for.

          Again, the fact that each state had two senators, and that those states were kept evenly split between slave and free states (or states which wanted to expand slavery and states which wanted to curtail or outlaw slavery) demonstrates how the balance of power in the senate was kept that way in order to avoid a conflict over the issue of slavery. Since states had different populations, and since much of the concentration of free people was concentrated in the northeast, the Senate (then as now) gives disproportionate power to (I mentioned this before) lower population and more rural states. Then, those states were largely southern slave states. Today, those states are largely rural conservative states.

          Yes, of course, there were slaves in northern states, too, but far fewer, and many northern states were curtailing or outlawing slavery while the south was doing everything in its power not only to protect it in the south, but to expand it for all states.

          Slavery was a divisive issue in the US from the very beginning, and the issue got kicked down the road many, many times before Lincoln was elected and the south seceded. Everything that happened at the federal level.

          • chaogomu
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Again, you forget that every state was a slave state in 1780. There were agitators who wanted to end slavery, even in southern states, but none had actually achieved it when the constitution was signed.

            The split of House and Senate was actually based on geography, as in which states had no defined western boarders.

            The Founders called them small states and large states. The house was meant to appease large states, Which included New York and Pennsylvania.

            The small states, got the Senate. Several of the small states had higher populations when the constitution was signed, but they knew it would shift out of their favor given enough time.

            The line that the House was meant to appease Slave states is true only because New York and Pennsylvania were slave states at the time.

            The 3/5ths compromise was thrown in to address this, but it isn’t the red herring you think it was.


            The electoral college was then added again, because it took months to get from one end of the country to the other, and there was a distinct chance that the winner of an election would be dead by the time the Georgia electors got to Washington in order to officially cast the vote. That’s it. That’s the full reason it exists.

            The presidential election was in the fall, and the certification was in the spring. All because there were no roads up and down the East Coast. No rail lines, no anything.

            You could take a ship, but there was a distinct risk of dying at sea.

    • @arensb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      The Electoral College did give the slave states more power, by way of the three-fifths compromise: the number of Electors depends on the number of Representatives, which depends on the census of inhabitants, not vote-eligible citizens, including, at the time, 3/5 of the slave population. So a state like Virginia, with more slaves than free people, got a boost compared to a state with only free residents.