I can see the senate as exactly what you described since it grants equal representation to all states regardless of population. Thus granting more power to the lower population slave states of the south.
The three fifths compromise did bolster slave state population numbers helping them in terms of population based seats in the house and the population determination of the electoral college.
But the electoral college system still favors states with the highest population. It gave more power to the more densely populated northern states that tended to be against slavery. If anything is gave more power to the abolitionists. For example, imagine a Pennsylvanian farmer that lives along the border with Maryland or Virginia (rememberin this time West Virginia was still Virginia). They may see the wealth of these plantation owners and grow envious, people can be greedy after all. They may even be encouraged to vote in favor of slavery, but it wouldn’t matter. Philadelphia was the most populous city in the United States at the time and would always swing the state away from pro-slavery candidates. Meaning 100% of the states presidential votes would go to candidates that oppose slavery. The free states almost always had the most electoral college votes. It was the senate that prevented slavery from being abolished.
Or at least this is my understanding, but I really would like to hear your perspective
Since it is equal between states the starting baseline of 2 votes seems negligible when compared to the much more substantial number of votes determined by the house of representatives. That would still give a much higher weight to the most populous states.
Which itself was appeasement to the slave states to get them to ratify the Constitution.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on this one more.
I can see the senate as exactly what you described since it grants equal representation to all states regardless of population. Thus granting more power to the lower population slave states of the south.
The three fifths compromise did bolster slave state population numbers helping them in terms of population based seats in the house and the population determination of the electoral college.
But the electoral college system still favors states with the highest population. It gave more power to the more densely populated northern states that tended to be against slavery. If anything is gave more power to the abolitionists. For example, imagine a Pennsylvanian farmer that lives along the border with Maryland or Virginia (rememberin this time West Virginia was still Virginia). They may see the wealth of these plantation owners and grow envious, people can be greedy after all. They may even be encouraged to vote in favor of slavery, but it wouldn’t matter. Philadelphia was the most populous city in the United States at the time and would always swing the state away from pro-slavery candidates. Meaning 100% of the states presidential votes would go to candidates that oppose slavery. The free states almost always had the most electoral college votes. It was the senate that prevented slavery from being abolished.
Or at least this is my understanding, but I really would like to hear your perspective
EC gives more weight to lower population states, because the number of electors is the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators.
How would that make a difference?
Since it is equal between states the starting baseline of 2 votes seems negligible when compared to the much more substantial number of votes determined by the house of representatives. That would still give a much higher weight to the most populous states.
Well, also EC is winner take all except in NE and ME. That’s probably a bigger impact.