Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Analyzing the Electoral College

Posted by michael on from the one-man-2.6-votes dept.

cft_128 writes "David S. Bennahum of has an article that breaks down the numbers in the electoral college, backing up his original 'One Voter One Vote' talk (listen to the mp4). In summary, a vote in Wyoming (has the smallest number of voters per elector) is worth 2.6 votes in Pennsylvania (has the largest number of voters per elector). He has some PDFs of charts, an outline of the talk and a spreadsheet."

25 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Not the best way to look at it by jbarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While this information may be "true", there still remains a misunderstanding about just how a U.S. President is elected. The point of the Electoral College is not to give individual votes different "weights" (though that may be the effect) but to provide a method of giving States fair representation. The general public needs to understand that U.S. Presidents are NOT elected (or defeated) by majority popular vote but that they are voting for Electors who, in turn, cast THEIR votes for the President at the State level. And to further complicate matters, States have different laws governing how electors are assigned and selected.

    This is not to say that the Electoral College is the best system, but we need to remember that if switch to a strict popular vote, then Smalltown, USA or Smallstate, USA would never get fair representation.

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    1. Re:Not the best way to look at it by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point of the Electoral College is not to give individual votes different "weights" (though that may be the effect) but to provide a method of giving States fair representation.

      True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

      Back when the Constitution was proposed, it was seeking approval from each state, so it's understandable that a compromise was made to attract smaller states. But just because we know there was a pragmatic reason for it once, doesn't mean it's the best thing to continue with.

      The general public needs to understand that U.S. Presidents are NOT elected (or defeated) by majority popular vote

      Everyone (besides a scattering of idiots) knows this. That's not the question. He's not asking how things are now, but how they should be. Imagine you were building a semi-democratic nation from a blank slate (hmm, that's a hobby of President Bush...). Would you try to make each citizen's vote equally powerful, or give extra-weight to the residents of certain areas?

    2. Re:Not the best way to look at it by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

      You fail to mention one of the main reasons the states choose the President. The Federal government is meant to govern the states, not the people. The states are partially autonomous. The reason for that is to get the direct governance closer to the people, where the people have more control over the government directly affecting them.

      The US Civil War shifted more power to the federal government; contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't just about slavery. Yet the laws and the Constitution did not change. The years since the Civil War have shown an increasing level of power grabs from the federal government.

      The fact that control of the government has been slipping away from the local level is not, I believe, a good reason to say that more control should be shifted that direction.

      In contrast to you opinion, I believe the people are better represented by moving the power back down to the State, County, and local level. Let them decide what is best for their State, and the State will represent them Federally.
      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    3. Re:Not the best way to look at it by barawn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True. But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

      No.

      For one, it avoids tyranny of the majority - something that's very, very difficult to deal with. For two, it allows a more even distribution of resources, and allows the country to utilize its resources efficiently.

      The problem is pretty simple - people in communities tend to vote similarly, because they have the same concerns. People in California are less likely to be concerned about farmers in Iowa, for instance. Equal voting would mean that California would far, far outrank Iowa (more than it does). But that would also imply that Iowa's not important - and it is. Neglecting Iowa at the expense of California would mean that you'd essentially create a mecca of civilization, surrounded by an expanse of decaying towns.

      This is exactly the case in a lot of other countries - specifically, Argentina, where Buenos Aires is akin to a first-world country, and everywhere else might as well be a third world country.

      (Point of note: it only ensures fairness among states in that it gives two votes per state, and has a minimum number of representatives of one. Other than that, population reigns. Hence the reason why Wyoming ranks so high - because the population's nothing.)

    4. Re:Not the best way to look at it by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For one, it avoids tyranny of the majority

      Funny thing is that the Electoral College system creates tyranny of the majority- within each state.

      Let's use Texas as an example (although something similar happens in most states). There are a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats. When they vote for President, however, ALL the electoral votes go to Bush, instead of the Democrats sending their 30% to Kerry.

      But that would also imply that Iowa's not important - and it is.

      If Iowa was really important, then the voters in California would see that (especially when they start paying those farmers for food).

      Let's think of some other cases where something important is represented by only a minority of the population...

      You know what? I think that the USA is unfairly biased towards the uneducated. Equal voting means that high-school graduates far, far outrank PhDs. But that implies that learned people aren't important- and they are. Neglecting collegians in favor of ignoramuses would mean creating a blanket of idiocy, sinking the country towards the lowest common denominator. So I suggest multipling each person's vote by the number of diploma's she's recieved.

      Also, CEOs and entrepeneurs are the drivers of economic growth- they push the creation of wealth that benefits everyone. Let's give business owners one extra vote per $250,000 annual income.

      How can you attack my proposals, while defending your own? They have the same basis- a person deserves more power, because he's got more of something- real estate, or education, or money, or whatever.

      Neglecting Iowa at the expense of California would mean that you'd essentially create a mecca of civilization, surrounded by an expanse of decaying towns.

      If that's where fairness leads, then so be it. If equal voting power and equal ability to participate in the free market aren't enough to give those towns viability, then let them die.

      PS. The use of the word "expense" in your post was completely nonsensical. In that sentence, "at the expense" should've been "in favor".

    5. Re:Not the best way to look at it by jbarr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Imagine you were building a semi-democratic nation from a blank slate (hmm, that's a hobby of President Bush...) Would you try to make each citizen's vote equally powerful, or give extra-weight to the residents of certain areas?
      I think we can all agree that everyone's vote should count equally in an election. However, in this new blank-slate nation, what happens when Campaigns and the Media target only the largest, statistically relevent areas and ignore the less populated and statistically less relevent areas? The individual's votes would count either more or less depending on where they live. If you live in a statistically irrelevent area, then your vote certainly wouldn't count as much as others. A system like the Electoral College tries to remove the statistical irrelevence of smaller populations.
      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    6. Re:Not the best way to look at it by RealProgrammer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?

      Our republic is built on a principle called "balance of power". There is a balance of power between the People, the States, and the Federal government. The People stand no chance against a corrupt Federal government without the States. The Federal government defends the rights of the people against the individual State goverments. The People elect the officials in the government (and make up the armed militia, just in case the officials forget who's boss).

      It is the States, not the People, who elect the President. The Electoral College compromises between giving each State a vote and allowing the aggregate popular vote to determine the winner.

      The Electoral College effectively protects the smaller States from the tyrrany of the larger ones. Without it, a candidate could campaign only in the coastal states, where most of the people are, and ignore the inland areas.

      Suppose a candidate did that. He or she could promise water and electricity to California, and ignore Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico (where the water and electricity would originate). The interests of Midwestern farmers would be ignored.

      The Electoral College is a wise system, and I think the best system. It pools voters by region, so that the interests of all the people in a region are given all of the weight of that region. You and your neighbors all vote; your collective decision speaks with the authority of all of you.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    7. Re:Not the best way to look at it by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Electoral College effectively protects the smaller States from the tyrrany of the larger ones. Without it, a candidate could campaign only in the coastal states, where most of the people are, and ignore the inland areas.

      No. Even with the current Electoral College, anyone who wins both coasts wins the presidency. Coastal states have more than 270 electoral votes, which is enough to defeat all inland places. (If you counted the Great Lakes as coastline, it'd be even more lopsided)

      It is the States, not the People, who elect the President.

      The people doing the voting don't much like that idea. If they really wanted it left to the State, they'd leave it in the hands of their governor or legislature, instead of going through the big expense of a wide-scale election.

      ignore Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico (where the water and electricity would originate).

      We've got a system to allow for the providers of a good or service to be compensated- it's called money.

      The interests of Midwestern farmers would be ignored.

      They are a small minority- why should they be disproportionately powerful? Let's play word replacement:

      The EC protects the sexual perverts from the tyranny of the mainstream. Without it, a candidate could campaign only to heterosexuals, which most of the people are, and ignore the gay community. Suppose a candidate did that. He could promise marriage and tax breaks to heteros, and ignore gays. The interests of gays would be ignored.

      (There are many less-silly examples I could've chosen. Bear in mind that as technology progresses, it becomes increasingly likely that a community with a common need will be geographically disperesed)

    8. Re:Not the best way to look at it by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Funny thing is that the Electoral College system creates tyranny of the majority- within each state. [...] There are a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats. When they vote for President, however, ALL the electoral votes go to Bush, instead of the Democrats sending their 30% to Kerry.

      This is not the fault of the EC itself. This is a fault at the state level, because each state decides how to assign the EC votes. Nebraska and Maine divvy the votes proportionally to the popular vote. Colorado is considering it.

      So petition your state legislature! It's easier to make a change at the state level than at the federal. That is, in fact, the primary reason for federalism (as opposed to nationalism) - it's supposed to keep more power at the state and local levels rather than centralizing it.

      If equal voting power and equal ability to participate in the free market aren't enough to give those towns viability, then let them die.

      Fine, if California (and the other big states) will let Iowa (and the other small states) secede when they start getting screwed. That was the original idea with a federal system, too. States (especially New England) threatened secession often in the first half century of the union. I bet if they tried today, CA/NY/TX/etc would suddenly feel that those states are important enough to keep them in the union, by force if necessary.

      You can't just completely ignore people's concerns because they're a minority. You're arguing for tyranny of the majority, the primary reason that pure democracy doesn't work!

      --

      Constitutionally Correct

    9. Re:Not the best way to look at it by RealProgrammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Without the EC, you don't get 100% of any one state. You only get the votes you get. There are lots and lots more votes to be had on the coasts, so that's where the candidates would stay (unless, e.g., there were some event of national interest taking place inland).

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
  2. It's worse than that. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, because of the winner-take-all nature of the elections, an individual vote in Wyoming has essentially no chance of counting (since the state isn't a swing state), but in Pennsylvania it has a far greater chance of counting.

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:It's worse than that. by dario_moreno · · Score: 4, Funny


      that is, depending on the whim of the Diebold machine operator, of course.

      --
      Google passes Turing test : see my journal
  3. one of the points of the electoral college by mzs · · Score: 5, Informative

    The smaller more rural states were concerned about being dominated by the larger states with cities in the national arena. It was seen that the interests of the rural and city populations would be different. The scheme of the Senate with two votes per state regardless of population and the two to three bonus (there are no fractional electors after-all, consider this as round-off error depending on where the state falls in relation to other states in the last census) electors for smaller states was devised in part because of that concern.

    David is from NY, a state with a number of large cities and he feels underrepresented, but consider the point of view of farmers and ranchers. We can have raging debates ad nausea for example about whether the federal government does too much or too little to assist farmers and ranchers, but the fact of the matter is that if it were not for the systems in place to grant disproportionate weight to rural areas, there would indeed be less aid.

    Also, is there really a surprise that cities tend Democratic and rural areas Republican? Again this seems to be sour grapes from David based on his comments.

    1. Re:one of the points of the electoral college by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Informative

      the fact of the matter is that if it were not for the systems in place to grant disproportionate weight to rural areas, there would indeed be less aid.

      The nation is full of minority groups that could potentially get more aid if only they had a disproportionate voting weight.

      Race, religion, gender, education, employment, income- we don't allow any of those categorizations to change the strength of someone's vote. Why should rural residents be special?

    2. Re:one of the points of the electoral college by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your justification for weighting the vote towards the farmer is flawed. I can imagine any number of groups to favor. Why not give blacks 1.5 votes per person to make up for their lesser numbers in the population? Or gays 3 votes? Or cancer victims 2.5 votes? It doesn't make any sense.

      There will always be justification for giving one group power over another. You could even come up with a reason to allow insane people two votes (maybe a vote for each personality, or as a reason to compel sane people to vote, or because an insane person is half as likely to vote, etc). That's the problem with tyranny--it's always accompanied with justifications.

      The only equitable answer is to aspire for true Democracy. If you educate the people well enough, and report the situation accurately enough, the farmers will get the aid they need--it is in the city-dwellers best interest that the farm community is healthy.

      Right now, farmers are paid to not produce milk, while at the same time they are injecting their cows with rBGH to produce more milk. So we're paying more for milk so we can get more milk that's not as healthy. Super...

  4. Yet another Mobocrat by CodeWanker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The electoral college is designed to defend our Federal system: a nation made up of separate states. Saying that the electoral college is not fair is like saying the bicameral legislature is not fair: after all, why don't we trust the house of representatives to make laws free from the interference of the inordinately powerful votes of the small states' senators?

    The argument this guy is making ignores the fact that our system is based on one of the most successful compromises in history: many disparate states sacrificing some aspects of sovereignty to form a single nation. Our constitution is set up so that the states choose the president, not the undifferentiated mass of the people. That means that there is intrinsic power in being a state, no matter how small. Article 2 section 1 clause 2 of the united states constitution determines how members of the electoral college are chosen: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

    So you see, the number is driven primarily by the population of the state (as the number of the representatives of the lower house of congress is) with a guaranteed minimum of votes to make sure each state gets a say in the process.

    Arguing for a number driven entirely by popular vote ignores the realities of separate states in our Federation, and invites secession and the possible dissolution of our nation.

    For the slower folks out there, I'll put the punchline here: the dissolution of the United States of America would be so bad for the stability, prosperity, and standard of living for the people of Earth that there aren't words strong enough to convey it.

    --


    "Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
    1. Re:Yet another Mobocrat by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The electoral college is designed to defend our Federal system: a nation made up of separate states.

      Yeah, because citizens today really have a greater loyalty to Georgia than the USA.

      That means that there is intrinsic power in being a state, no matter how small

      Stating the obvious doesn't prove it is good, only that it is.

      Arguing for a number driven entirely by popular vote ignores the realities of separate states in our Federation, and invites secession and the possible dissolution of our nation.

      Right. That non-popular vote sure has done a good job at preventing secession.

      the dissolution of the United States of America would be so bad for the stability, prosperity, and standard of living for the people of Earth that there aren't words strong enough to convey it.

      If that's as obviously true as you say, then nobody will vote for secession, even in a popular election.

    2. Re:Yet another Mobocrat by cft_128 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not the point, someone in WY has different needs than someone in Atlanta should they be ignored because Atlanta is bigger?

      Should my vote count less simply because my state has a large population?

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  5. The electoral college is less of a problem... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The electoral college is less of a problem than the fact that we have one vote, one choice. We can't preferentially vote, there's no instant run-off, and so our incentive is always to use our sole vote for the first candidate or the second candidate.

    I mean, there are issues with the electoral college, sure, but nothing really compares to the "single choice" model -- *that* is just screwed up.

    --
    May we never see th
  6. A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy by stankulp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Democracy is exactly what the founders sought to avoid when they framed the Constitution.

    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

    A democracy is eternally threatened by the power of stupid people in large numbers.

    Our form of government is a "representative republic," in which all of the citizens choose a few of their fellow citizens to represent them in the legislature. These representatives are able to make more informed decisions than the mob rule that is democracy.

    The name of our country is the "United States." When the United States was formed from the original thirteen colonies, each of these colonies intended to maintain their own autonomy and internal governments.

    Each state in the union was intended to be a sovereign governmental entity. The centralized powers of the common federal government binding these united states was intended to be limited to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

    In other words, the citizens of the United States federal government are the individual states. It is they who are voting for a President, not the individual citizens of the federation.

    That's why most states have a "winner take all" policy for their electoral votes.

    The last thing on earth the founders intended was "one voter, one vote," because that is democratic mob rule.

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
    1. Re:A Representative Republic, Not a Democracy by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Bloody great post!

      Except this part

      That's why most states have a "winner take all" policy for their electoral votes.

      It would be more accurate to say thats why each state can decide their electors as they see fit..

      --
  7. Wrong, in at least two ways by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The author of the article needs to do some research in both the history and the mathematics of the electoral college.

    From the historical perspective, what the author claims is a problem is *exactly* what was intended by the founding fathers. They were afraid that large, populous states would dominate small states so they made an explicit attempt to counter that large-state dominance.

    From a mathematical perspective, Bennahaum is wrong about the effect of the electoral college, and so were the founders. The reason he's wrong is that the method he's using for analyzing the power of a vote -- calculating each voter's "share" of an electoral vote -- is inadequate and fails to account for the fact that most states (all but Vermont, I think) allocate their electoral votes as a bloc.

    A better measure of voting power is the Bahnzaf Power Index, which defines the power of a vote as the probability that that vote will "swing" the election. In the case of the electoral college that means you have to do a two-level analysis. For each state, you have to calculate the probability that a single vote in that state will swing that state's electoral votes from one candidate to another. Then, for each state you have to calculate the probability that that state's electoral votes will swing the election.

    What comes out of this analysis is the discovery that the voters in the smallest states have far *less* power than the voters in large states. We saw evidence of this in 2000: Florida was not the only state with a very tight election but no one bothered fighting (much) about the others because they were smaller states and didn't matter. Whichever way Florida's 25 votes would win, regardless of the other outcomes.

    That said, more recent statistical analysis (which I can't find right now, but there are some papers on the web) that takes into account the current structure of political power in the United States shows that, in fact, the net effect of the electoral college is pretty close to zero. Beyond the math, history shows this pretty clearly as well: There have only been three presidential elections in the 200-year history of the US where the electoral college produced a different result than a purely popular vote would have.

    In my opinion, the founders were right about the need for something to shift power to smaller states, because as a resident of a smaller state it's quite clear that our voices are completely irrelevant. So, if you want to fix the electoral college, you should just modify it so that states allocate their electoral votes proportionally, based on the votes cast in that state. That will (mostly) eliminate the bloc voting effect while retaining the balancing feature that has, unfortunately, never worked.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  8. What would it take to scrap it? by jfruhlinger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's an interesting question for you all. What do you think it would take to get enough political willpower in the U.S. to scrap this system?

    Four years ago, I would have said "Have someone lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote." Obviously I was wrong. But 2000 was a special case -- all the controversy swirling around Florida meant that by the time things were finally settled, no one wanted to think or hear about presidential elections anymore. In fact, there are any number of both Bush and Gore supporters from 2000 who probably don't even know, or quickly forgot, that Gore came in first in the popular vote overall.

    So, what if this year the same thing happens, but the parties reverse -- Kerry wins the Electoral College (and the presidency), Bush wins the popular vote? Would the two parties see the last two elections as enough impetus to change or scrap the EC? Even if the national parties agreed, could they enforce party discipline on the state level to push the necessary constitutional changes through the state legislatures?

    For my personal opinion -- I say scrap it, or at least modify it so that the whole country does a proportional or by-congressional-district apportionment like Maine and Nebraska. I know all the arguments about federalism -- I just don't find them that persuasive or relevant. The bottom line is that the Presidency and the U.S. central government are now so powerful, and so intrusive in people's lives, that to give some U.S. citizens extra voting power just because of where they happen to live extremely undemocratic. And yes, with modern American mobility, it *is* a matter of "where they happen to live" -- people move across state lines all the time, and I don't think loyalty to one's home state is anywhere near what it used to be.

    In addition, several of the founding concepts of the system seem to be to flawed or no longer relevant. States of a similar size don't necessarily have similar interestes -- compare D.C. and Wyoming (3 EVs), Maryland and Arizona (10 EVs), New York and Texas (31-34 EVs). And states don't necessarily have monolithic interests -- New York and California both contains regions with wildly different demographic and political profiles.

    jf

  9. My post on his blog -- look at it statistically. by Randolpho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am very much in favor of the Electoral College, although I agree that certain tweaks are necessary, specifically the winner-take-all system that nearly all of the States have adopted.

    Mr. Bennahum, you appear to be statistically oriented.... try applying those statistics to the inherit error involved in a nation-wide direct-vote Presidential election. Be sure to factor in electoral problems like the ones in New Mexico and Florida in the 2000 election.

    Pretty high, isn't it? That's right it is.

    Not only does the Electoral College ensure that a Presidential Candidate be palatable to most of the States in the country (as Luke White mentioned), it also ensures a final vote that has zero statistic error. Although whether or not a particular vote should have been one way or the other could come in to question, the vote itself, once cast, is solid and undeniable. There is zero doubt about the legitimacy of the Presidency in such as system.

    Invariably, whenever there is a close race, somebody calls for the abolishment of the Electoral College. The thing is... close races are when the Electoral College goes to *work*, not when it gets in the way.

    Fix the Electoral College, don't remove it.

    --
    "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
    -Marilyn Manson
  10. Was the EC created to shift power to small states? by cft_128 · · Score: 2, Informative
    In my opinion, the founders were right about the need for something to shift power to smaller states, because as a resident of a smaller state it's quite clear that our voices are completely irrelevant. So, if you want to fix the electoral college, you should just modify it so that states allocate their electoral votes proportionally, based on the votes cast in that state. That will (mostly) eliminate the bloc voting effect while retaining the balancing feature that has, unfortunately, never worked.

    There are some good arguments out there that say that shifting power to the smaller states was not what they really wanted. This is from the linked article:

    The second (partially) wrong explanation: the electoral college was designed to protect the small states from dominance by the large. This is the explanation the respected commentator, Daniel Schorr, gave recently on National Public Radio. In all the debates over the executive at the Constitutional Convention, this issue never came up. Indeed, the opposite argument was more important. At one point the Convention considered allowing the state governors to choose the president but backed away from this in part because it would allow the small states to chose one of their own.

    The correct explanation: to understand the origin of the electoral college we first must see the various methods of picking a president that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention considered. Initially, the president was to be elected by the Congress and serve for seven years. Some delegates wanted a single term for the president, but the majority were opposed to term limits -- they believed the best leaders should serve as long as the people wanted them to serve.

    [...]

    Thus, the delegates had to find another method of electing the president. On July 19, 1787 Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut proposed "electors" appointed by the state legislatures. Under Ellsworth's plan these would be apportioned on the basis of population, and thus the small states would have no special advantage.

    At this point James Madison, a slaveholder from Virginia, weighed in. The most influential delegate, Madison argued that "the people at large" were "the fittest" to choose the president. But "one difficulty...of a serious nature" made election by the people impossible. Madison noted that the "right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes." In order to guarantee that the nonvoting slaves could nevertheless influence the presidential election, Madison favored the creation of the electoral college. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina was more open about the reasons for southern opposition to election by popular vote. He noted that under a direct election of the president, Virginia would not be able to elect her leaders president because "her slaves will have no suffrage." The same of course would be true for the rest of the South.

    The 3/5 compromise gave white land owners in southern states, especially Virginia, much more power in choosing president than the smaller northern states. In the 1800 election between John Adams (not a slave owner) and Thomas Jefferson (slave owner from virginia) John Adams would have won if the 3/5 compromise had not been in place.
    --

    Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org