Phx-Suns.Net

In2ition wrote:Did the slave owners get to vote per every slave they had? If the slave owner had 100 slaves, could he vote 100 times plus himself and his possible wife?

No. Those eligible to vote got to vote, and everybody else's didn't. The 3/5 formula was used to determine the number of Representatives a state had and the amount of direct taxes a state had to pay, not the number of votes actually cast by the electorate.

I'm not convinced at all that it is was because of slavery, nor that the EC should be done away with.

Doing away with it the EC any point in the foreseeable future is impossible, so the question of whether it "should" happen is academic.

Cap wrote:

In2ition wrote:Did the slave owners get to vote per every slave they had? If the slave owner had 100 slaves, could he vote 100 times plus himself and his possible wife?

No. Those eligible to vote got to vote, and everybody else's didn't. The 3/5 formula was used to determine the number of Representatives a state had and the amount of direct taxes a state had to pay, not the number of votes actually cast by the electorate.

I'm not convinced at all that it is was because of slavery, nor that the EC should be done away with.

Doing away with it the EC any point in the foreseeable future is impossible, so the question of whether it "should" happen is academic.

The number of delegates in the EC matches that of the number of seats in the house. So if you are a state of non-slave owners, but have half the population of a slave owning state that (when deducting 2/5ths of every slave) has twice as many people, you get half the votes.

Cap wrote:

In2ition wrote:Did the slave owners get to vote per every slave they had? If the slave owner had 100 slaves, could he vote 100 times plus himself and his possible wife?

No. Those eligible to vote got to vote, and everybody else's didn't. The 3/5 formula was used to determine the number of Representatives a state had and the amount of direct taxes a state had to pay, not the number of votes actually cast by the electorate.

I'm not convinced at all that it is was because of slavery, nor that the EC should be done away with.

Doing away with it the EC any point in the foreseeable future is impossible, so the question of whether it "should" happen is academic.

You say "impossible" because you don't think 2/3 of the states would support it (which I totally agree with)? Or are you saying there is literally something that would make it not possible?

Indy wrote:

Cap wrote:

In2ition wrote:Did the slave owners get to vote per every slave they had? If the slave owner had 100 slaves, could he vote 100 times plus himself and his possible wife?

No. Those eligible to vote got to vote, and everybody else's didn't. The 3/5 formula was used to determine the number of Representatives a state had and the amount of direct taxes a state had to pay, not the number of votes actually cast by the electorate.

I'm not convinced at all that it is was because of slavery, nor that the EC should be done away with.

Doing away with it the EC any point in the foreseeable future is impossible, so the question of whether it "should" happen is academic.

You say "impossible" because you don't think 2/3 of the states would support it (which I totally agree with)? Or are you saying there is literally something that would make it not possible?

It's 3/4, and yes, that's why.

Giving DC representation in Congress is a similar issue. It's easy to make a moral case for it, but there's no way 38 out of 50 states are going to buy in.

Cap wrote:

Indy wrote:

Cap wrote:

In2ition wrote:Did the slave owners get to vote per every slave they had? If the slave owner had 100 slaves, could he vote 100 times plus himself and his possible wife?

No. Those eligible to vote got to vote, and everybody else's didn't. The 3/5 formula was used to determine the number of Representatives a state had and the amount of direct taxes a state had to pay, not the number of votes actually cast by the electorate.

I'm not convinced at all that it is was because of slavery, nor that the EC should be done away with.

Doing away with it the EC any point in the foreseeable future is impossible, so the question of whether it "should" happen is academic.

You say "impossible" because you don't think 2/3 of the states would support it (which I totally agree with)? Or are you saying there is literally something that would make it not possible?

It's 3/4, and yes, that's why.

Giving DC representation in Congress is a similar issue. It's easy to make a moral case for it, but there's no way 38 out of 50 states are going to buy in.

Got it. I agree it is really unlikely

I am ok wth the EC. If Hillary would have won no Democrat would be talking about it. She did win the popular vote and all that means to me is that Trump doesn't have as big a mandate as he thinks he has.

I don't think they should get rid of the EC. But I do think the states should give out their E.votes proportionally based on that state's popular vote, as a few states like Maine currently do.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:I don't think they should get rid of the EC. But I do think the states should give out their E.votes proportionally based on that state's popular vote, as a few states like Maine currently do.

No state currently does that. ME and NE give out their electors by Congressional district (one EV for each district you win, and two for winning the state).

^ You're totally right. I did a bad job of describing it. But we were referring to the same thing. I just meant that I like it that some states are willing to split their electoral votes and not just always award 100% of them to the majority popular vote winner.