Editing United States Electoral College (section)

=== Three-fifths clause and the role of slavery ===
{{POV section|date=February 2024}}
After the initial estimates agreed to in the original Constitution, Congressional and Electoral College reapportionment was made according to a decennial census to reflect population changes, modified by counting [[Three-Fifths Compromise|three-fifths of slaves]]. On this basis after the first census, the Electoral College still gave the free men of slave-owning states (but never slaves) extra power (Electors) based on a count of these disenfranchised people, in the choice of the U.S. president.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130103115308/http://history.house.gov/Institution/Apportionment/Apportionment/ Apportionment by State (PDF)], House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, viewed January 27, 2019.

Unlike composition in the College, from 1803 to 1846, the U.S. Senate sustained parity between free-soil and slave-holding states. Later a run of free-soil states, including Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas, were admitted before the outbreak of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]].</ref>

At the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]], the college composition, in theory, amounted to 49 votes for northern states (in the process of abolishing slavery) and 42 for slave-holding states (including Delaware). In the event, the first (i.e. 1788) presidential election lacked votes and electors for unratified Rhode Island (3) and North Carolina (7) and for New York (8) which reported too late; the Northern majority was 38 to 35.<ref>[https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript U.S. Constitution Transcript], held at the U.S. National Archives, viewed online on February 5, 2019.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} For the next two decades, the three-fifths clause led to electors of free-soil Northern states numbering 8% and 11% more than Southern states. The latter had, in the compromise, relinquished counting two-fifths of their slaves and, after 1810, were outnumbered by 15.4% to 23.2%.<ref>Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valelly, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}} p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.</ref>

While House members for Southern states were boosted by an average of {{frac|1|3}},<ref>Leonard L. Richards, [https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=5564|The Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780–1860] (2001), referenced in a review at Humanities and Social Sciences Net Online, viewed February 2, 2019.</ref> a free-soil majority in the college maintained over this early republic and Antebellum period.<ref>Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, pp. 464–65, Table 16.6, "Impact of the Three-fifths Clause on the Electoral College, 1792–1860". The continuing, uninterrupted northern free-soil majority margin in the Electoral College would have been significantly smaller had slaves been counter-factually counted as whole persons, but still the South would have been a minority in the Electoral College over these sixty-eight years.</ref> Scholars conclude that the three-fifths clause had low impact on sectional proportions and factional strength, until denying the North a pronounced supermajority, as to the Northern, federal initiative to abolish slavery. The seats that the South gained from such "slave bonus" were quite evenly distributed between the parties. In the First Party System (1795–1823), the Jefferson Republicans gained 1.1 percent more adherents from the slave bonus, while the Federalists lost the same proportion. At the Second Party System (1823–1837) the emerging Jacksonians gained just 0.7% more seats, versus the opposition loss of 1.6%.<ref>Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, pp. 454–55.</ref>

The three-fifths slave-count rule is associated with three or four outcomes, 1792–1860:
* The clause, having reduced the South's power, led to John Adams's win in 1796 over Thomas Jefferson.<ref>Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valley, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause", Chapter 15 in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.</ref>
* In 1800, historian [[Garry Wills]] argues, Jefferson's victory over Adams was due to the slave bonus count in the Electoral College as Adams would have won if citizens' votes were used for each state.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power|last=Wills|first=Garry|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|year=2005|isbn=978-0618485376|pages=1–3 |language=en}}</ref> However, historian [[Sean Wilentz]] points out that Jefferson's purported "slave advantage" ignores an offset by electoral manipulation by anti-Jefferson forces in Pennsylvania. Wilentz concludes that it is a myth to say that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html|title=Opinion &#124; The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy|first=Sean|last=Wilentz|newspaper=The New York Times|date=April 4, 2019|access-date=May 20, 2020}}</ref>
* In 1824, the presidential selection was passed to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams was chosen over Andrew Jackson, who won fewer citizens' votes. Then Jackson won in 1828, but would have lost if the college were citizen-only apportionment. Scholars conclude that in the 1828 race, Jackson benefited materially from the Three-fifths clause by providing his margin of victory.

The first "Jeffersonian" and "Jacksonian" victories were of great importance as they ushered in sustained party majorities of several Congresses and presidential party eras.<ref>Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, p. 464.</ref>

Besides the Constitution prohibiting Congress from regulating foreign or domestic slave trade before 1808 and a duty on states to return escaped "persons held to service",<ref>[https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Constitution of the United States: A Transcription], online February 9, 2019. See Article I, Section 9, and in Article IV, Section 2.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} legal scholar [[Akhil Reed Amar]] argues that the college was originally advocated by slaveholders as a bulwark to prop up slavery. In the Congressional apportionment provided in the text of the Constitution with its Three-Fifths Compromise estimate, "Virginia emerged as the big winner [with] more than a quarter of the [votes] needed to win an election in the first round [for Washington's first presidential election in 1788]." Following the [[1790 United States census]], the most populous state was Virginia, with 39.1% slaves, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, to yield a calculated number of 175,389 for congressional apportionment.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=H9KwtRkiO1YC&pg=PA42 First Census of the United States], Chapter III in "A Century of Population Growth from the first Census", volume 900, United States Census Office, 1909 In the 1790, Virginia's...population was 747,610, Pennsylvania was 433,633. (p. 8). Virginia had 59.1 percent white and 1.7 percent free black counted whole, and 39.1 percent, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, or a 175,389 number for congressional apportionment. Pennsylvania had 97.5 percent white and 1.6 percent free black, and 0.9 percent slave, or 7,372 persons, p. 82.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}

"The "free" state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia but got 20% fewer electoral votes."<ref name="amar2">{{cite magazine|last1=Amar|first1=Akhil|title= The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists|url=https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/|magazine=Time|date=November 10, 2016}}</ref> Pennsylvania split eight to seven for Jefferson, favoring Jefferson with a majority of 53% in a state with 0.1% slave population.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20051024161640/http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/1800-election/1800-election.html Tally of Electoral Votes for the 1800 Presidential Election, February 11, 1801], National Archives, The Center for Legislative Archives, viewed January 27, 2019.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Historian [[Eric Foner]] agrees the Constitution's Three-Fifths Compromise gave protection to slavery.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery|last=Foner|first=Eric|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|page=16|year=2010|isbn=978-0393080827|language=en}}</ref>

Supporters of the College have provided many counterarguments to the charges that it defended slavery. [[Abraham Lincoln]], the president who helped abolish slavery, won a College majority in [[1860 United States presidential election|1860]] despite winning 39.8% of citizen's votes.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Guelzo|first1=Adam|last2=Hulme|first2=James|title=In Defense of the Electoral College|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college/?|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=November 15, 2016}}</ref> This, however, was a clear plurality of a popular vote divided among four main candidates.

Benner notes that Jefferson's first margin of victory would have been wider had the entire slave population been counted on a ''per capita'' basis.<ref name="benner"/> He also notes that some of the most vociferous critics of a national popular vote at the constitutional convention were delegates from free states, including [[Gouverneur Morris]] of Pennsylvania, who declared that such a system would lead to a "great evil of cabal and corruption," and [[Elbridge Gerry]] of Massachusetts, who called a national popular vote "radically vicious".<ref name="benner">{{cite web |last1=Benner |first1=Dave |date=November 15, 2016 |title=Blog: Cherry Picking James Madison |url=https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/cherry-picking-james-madison/ |work=[[Donald Livingston#Abbeville Institute|Abbeville Institute]] |type=}}</ref>

Delegates [[Oliver Ellsworth]] and [[Roger Sherman]] of Connecticut, a state which had adopted a gradual emancipation law three years earlier, also criticized a national popular vote.<ref name=benner/> Of like view was [[Charles Cotesworth Pinckney]], a member of Adams' [[Federalist Party]], presidential candidate in 1800. He hailed from South Carolina and was a slaveholder.<ref name=benner/> In [[1824 United States presidential election|1824]], [[Andrew Jackson]], a slaveholder from Tennessee, was similarly defeated by [[John Quincy Adams]], a strong [[John Quincy Adams and abolitionism|critic of slavery]].<ref name=benner/>