General Discussion

Wabbajack_

(1,300 posts)

38. Re: 3/5s rule

Thu Nov 24, 2016, 11:37 PM

Nov 2016

This is kinda inaccurately talked about all the time. It's made out like Black people (slaves at the time) were counted less out of racism. What actually happened was that slave owners wanted to count them so they would get more (pro-slavery) Congressional representation for the Southern states, very unfairly since slaves were not considered citizens and couldn't vote so why should those slave states get extra House members. 3/5 was a compromise, the slave owners wanted to count them the SAME as everyone else, the North didn't want to count them at all, anyone that opposed slavery (DU if the Internet had existed back then) wouldn't have wanted to count them at all.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Some electoral college math: Small states way overweighted [View all] rurallib Nov 2016 OP

Affirmative action for old rural white people eridani Nov 2016 #1

easy solution rickford66 Nov 2016 #2

or we could just go to popular vote. rurallib Nov 2016 #3

1 n/t forgotmylogin Nov 2016 #19

Not without a constutional amendment. WillowTree Nov 2016 #48

I'm not sure what you mean Wabbajack_ Nov 2016 #36

OK rickford66 Nov 2016 #47

So are Congressional districts JonLP24 Nov 2016 #4

Can the Democrats raise this issue? yardwork Nov 2016 #5

It's in the constitution, so it would be an amendment rurallib Nov 2016 #7

The simplest solution I have seen is a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact etherealtruth Nov 2016 #14

Exactly pbmus Nov 2016 #40

California signed wryter2000 Nov 2016 #56

A couple of days ago, I was bored and did some calculating OnlinePoker Nov 2016 #6

How would that be possible with Hillary 2 million ahead in popular votes? pnwmom Nov 2016 #10

I went based on state populations OnlinePoker Nov 2016 #11

I see HRC won CA by about 3.5 million votes. 7962 Nov 2016 #24

You know, when this country was formed, it was named dumbcat Nov 2016 #8

Nice to see at least one person remembers their civics classes. ManiacJoe Nov 2016 #9

We can still have our STATES JonLP24 Nov 2016 #13

When this country was formed blacks were not a full person either rpannier Nov 2016 #16

And your whining still won't change it dumbcat Nov 2016 #18

A lot of things wouldn't have changed if people had your attitude. LisaL Nov 2016 #20

Some people do not want things to change etherealtruth Nov 2016 #23

Yep, they remind me of Antoni Scalia. paleotn Nov 2016 #37

Essentially, part of California would pick our president. yallerdawg Nov 2016 #25

Yes. Women would not treestar Nov 2016 #67

We don't need a constituional amendment to change things etherealtruth Nov 2016 #26

Correct dumbcat Nov 2016 #28

Yes they could and it would not require a constitutional amendment etherealtruth Nov 2016 #29

That would make every election unanimous if every state did that MichMan Nov 2016 #55

Do you think the winner of the popular vote should be the one elected president? etherealtruth Nov 2016 #60

Changing the rules to favor one point in time might end up working against us someday MichMan Nov 2016 #61

I clearly addressed both points? etherealtruth Nov 2016 #62

Not very nice treestar Nov 2016 #68

Of course dumbcat Nov 2016 #69

No, accusing people of "whining" treestar Nov 2016 #70

Re: 3/5s rule Wabbajack_ Nov 2016 #38

Oh, you're right! That reason was SO much better! kcr Nov 2016 #46

sad that not only do people not know this hfojvt Nov 2016 #51

Actually quite hypocritical of them treestar Nov 2016 #71

Not this again. duffyduff Nov 2016 #17

Can you explain to us then how the 30 odd states which were formed after the constitution was ... rgbecker Nov 2016 #21

Which is exactly why the Electoral College was created. 7962 Nov 2016 #22

Oh, God, an originalist.... paleotn Nov 2016 #31

"For all practical purposes ..." dumbcat Nov 2016 #39

No, she lost.... paleotn Nov 2016 #50

You don't understand dumbcat Nov 2016 #53

to be fair hfojvt Nov 2016 #52

i plan to "deal with it" by trying to change it; the constitution allows change. nt TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #45

So? That doesn't mean we had to give disproportional representation pnwmom Nov 2016 #54

Exactly dumbcat Nov 2016 #57

I agree and I'm in Iowa too! Bettie Nov 2016 #12

Seems out of wack with the Equal Protection Clause itsrobert Nov 2016 #15

Also, winner take all is an abomination. Alex4Martinez Nov 2016 #27

Small states are way underweighted in the electoral college sl8 Nov 2016 #30

Small states are way overweighted based on population. LisaL Nov 2016 #33

What is the population of a state? n/t sl8 Nov 2016 #43

A compromise that's no longer needed.... paleotn Nov 2016 #34

Then there should be no problem dumbcat Nov 2016 #42

There's another way to look at it jmowreader Nov 2016 #35

Absolutely. sl8 Nov 2016 #44

Ive wondered this for years titaniumsalute Nov 2016 #32

Here. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ pbmus Nov 2016 #41

Is there another solution? Matt_R Nov 2016 #49

And California is massively underweighted. BigDemVoter Nov 2016 #58

Maybe we should research some countries dumbcat Nov 2016 #59

That's the problem with the electoral college. Vinca Nov 2016 #63

and the fear and hate they espouse will always give them a rurallib Nov 2016 #64

I recommend a bill that says without a population of 7 million you get no reps. ileus Nov 2016 #65

Brilliant! dumbcat Nov 2016 #66