You’re correct. Sorry for the word choice but the outcome was the same.

The North didn’t want them counted at all because, at the time, they were treated as assets not as people. The South wanted them counted not because they were going to be voters but because they would raise the number of representatives in the Congress and the resulting political power. The slave owners never intended for them to be afforded any rights as voters. The 3/5th was a compromise as you said for political purposes.

So, my point was, and still is, as changes happen to our voting system why shouldn’t the Electoral College change with it? We’ve added articles to the Constitution from time to time.

If the basic text/meaning of the Constitution is not appealing to someone, they should move to a place that has a set of laws that are more appealing, rather than trying to change the fabric of my Country. I believe some things in the Constitution should not change, or be changed, such as the function of the Electoral College. For example, I believe the Second Amendment is the only one where it says "shall not be infringed". Anybody who wants to take away my Second Amendment rights is therefore an enemy of the Constitution and should be treated as such. Anyone wanting to get rid of the Electoral College is essentially advocating for a pure democracy, rather than a constitutional republic, and is also, in my mind, an enemy of the Constitution.

^ you are aware that the things you’re all riled up about are constitutional Amendments, right? As in, they weren’t there to begin with. Turns out the Constitution can be, and has been, revised periodically through a legislative process for the good of the people. I’ve also found that people who are strict constitutionalists on certain amendments like the 2nd aren’t usually as psyched about other ones like 13-15. Weird... it reminds me of strict biblical literalists who take the King James Bible, or the Book of Mormon, as the literal word of God.

Anyway, the electoral college is an antiquated historical relic that is contrived to favor certain votes over certain others, and is subject to manipulation of the worst kind. However, until and unless our legislators figure out how to get out of their own way and do something useful for a change, the electoral college is the law of the land. The baseball* analogy is apt- complain about the rules all you want, but they are the rules and you need to play by them. There’s no crying in baseball, and there should be no crying in elections**. If our president is going to be chosen by a bunch of toothless hayseeds in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania***, then you need to figure out how to win votes in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania.

* Baseball is also an antiquated historical relic, which is why nobody watches it any more.

** Everyone IS inherently biased and unfair, it’s in the machine code for humans. Science is the premise that groups of people can overcome the inherent weaknesses of individuals if we do things the right way.

*** of note: the author is descended from a long and distinguished line of toothless hayseeds in Ohio and Pennsylvania, almost all of whom vote Republican even though they voted Democrat 30 years ago. The author worked very hard to obtain the social mobility required to not live in such a place.

I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, were products of the same founding fathers. They should be left alone. The rest of the amendments came later. I heard some near illiterate democrat say something like "the founding fathers wrote the 14th Amendment, and therefore anchor babies are constitutional". What a maroon. I tend to agree with you about some of the later amendments--the 14th served its purpose and should be removed. I'm also glad they repealed prohibition...

Ah, the good old days... 1791. If we could just bring society and culture back there, everything would be great.

1791 with combustion engines, airplanes, and electricity would be okay. People were polite. Women knew their place.

The taxes and scope of government reach were reasonable.

I don't need a National Endowment of the Arts, Housing and Urban Development, or our military in Yemen, yet here we are.

This is either grade-A satire or one of the most offensive things I've read on this forum in a very long time.

Your scenario was

Game 1: Cubs 0, Indians 6
Game 2: Cubs 5, Indians 3
Game 3: Cubs 1, Indians 0
Game 4: Cubs 7, Indians 5
Game 5: Cubs 2, Indians 7
Game 6: Cubs 9, Indians 6
Game 7: Cubs 8, Indians 7

I count the Cubs winning five games in that list, unless I was really drunk at the time

Which part?

The Indians were offended by something Joe Maddon said during the 8th inning in Game 3, so they won despite the score.

(Also, I may have been drinking when I did that math.)