Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What do you mean by "salty"? Are you saying that I am "salty" or that my small states are "salty" yet powerful? Your meaning is not clear at all.
That was before the cotton gin made slave-worked plantations so enormously profitable. What evidence do you have that the FF thought that slavery would wither away?
The current USSC ruled against Colorado deciding how its electors would be decided by overriding its rules for qualification to be on the ballot.
…
And that would have still been true after slavery had (presumably) withered away. The Electoral College was not predicated on the existence of slavery or created as a provision to continue slavery. Even if there had not been slavery, there would still have been needed a solution like the Electoral College to provide for state-level selection of the president and vice-president.
That was the reason for the Constitution's otherwise-inexplicable provision to prohibit slave importation by 1808. Over the course of deliberation, slavery was very nearly prohibited outright by the Constitution. At one point, all the Constitutional delegates except those from South Carolina had agreed to prohibiting slavery. Writings by slaveholders such as Thomas Jefferson predicted the eventual demise of slavery (the expectation was that the freed slaves would be deported to Africa).
The 3/5th rule was a compromise to limit the slave states representation in the House, which had the most direct effect on federal taxation. Remember that the slave states wanted all their slaves counted. Taxation was a major tool for the North, not the South. Southern control of the House would strangle the federal government at birth...which was a far more important issue to the North than slavery.
Yes, the compromise had always been a “messy” item; the slave states wanted their slaves to count as people when it suited them but as “property” when it didn’t. The “free” states wanted the slaves to be not counted as people at all, since they weren’t where they were by choice, but captives in the states wherein they resided.
I've noticed that the Supreme Court and the people appointed are making some political rulings instead of putting the Constitution first. Do you remember when Congress refused to confirm any appointees that Obama put forward because he had only six months left in his tenure. How is it possible to keep what is obviously unfair if not illegal from happening? Then when the next guy got in, he was able to appoint judges right away. So basically they determined that a couple months was long enough to consider appropriate justices and six months wasn't. Obviously the Republicans refused to confirm anyone until their party got in power and could stack the court with 3 Justices. It seems like nobody even objected to that. How can the justice system be sp lop sided in a supposedly fair constitutional democratically elected republic?
It clearly had to do with the electoral college, given the number of electors a state got was how many members in congress that state had, which was affected by the 3/5 compromise.
Tell me, who makes even the slightest effort to convince the people of Wyoming or Hawaii to vote for president?
The last time Wyoming voted for a Democrat was in 1964. Abolishing the Electoral College wouldn't change Wyoming, so likely there still wouldn't be much campaigning there to swing their vote. The same is true for Hawaii. Your point is moot...campaigning would be concentrated on swing states whether the Electoral College existed or not.
If 5% of Wyoming voters are swing voters, that would make there be about 13,000 votes up for grab in Wyoming (probably more, because I gave the numbers based on how many people voted in the presidential election in 2020, and no doubt there'd be a bigger turnout if there was reason to believe one's vote might actually matter). That's a pretty small amount. But it's infinitely larger than the zero votes that are currently up for grab in Wyoming.
