The “polls” that are being cited aren’t polls about who was going to “win” the total vote. They are polls that showed who was going to win in individual states, polls which were horribly inaccurate in places like Wisconsin.
I offer nothing? I offer what the FFs created, what we have for an electoral system and the FFs rationale for why they did what they did.
So far you have provided nothing of substance and merely told us you don’t think it is worth your time to provide answers or arguments.
Pot meet kettle. :rolleyes:
While technically true, most people don’t know that and so, in their minds, they are voting for the candidate. It’s the button they push or the box they check.
I agree. 
You’re saying that it was all a result of mud that was slung after the election started? Don’t blame poor Hillary for losing, NOONE could have withstood that withering assault of revelations (many of which were true)?
or perhaps you should state what point you are trying to make clearly.
The five slave states had about the same populations as the rest of the Union. The only “small” southern state was Georgia.
The smallest states were Delaware, RI, Georgia then New Hampshire.
The Senate compromise was to make the small states happy, NOT the slave states.
*During the summer of 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia established equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. Called the “Great Compromise” or the “Connecticut Compromise,” the unique plan for congressional representation resolved the most controversial aspect of the drafting of the Constitution.
In the weeks before the Constitution’s framers agreed to the compromise, the delegates from the states with large populations argued that each state’s representation in the Senate should correspond to the size of the state. Large-state delegates promoted James Madison’s Virginia Plan, the document that was the basis for several of the clauses in the Constitution. Under this plan, the Senate and the House would base their membership on the same proportional “right of suffrage.” That is, the number of senators in each state would be determined by its population of free citizens and slaves. Large states, then, stood to gain the most seats in the Senate. As justification for this advantage, delegates noted that their states contributed more of the nation’s financial and defensive resources than small states, and therefore, required a greater say in government.
Small-state delegates hoped to protect states’ rights within a confederate system of government. Fearing the effects of majority rule, they demanded equal representation in Congress, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation and assumed in William Paterson’s New Jersey Plan. In fact, some framers threatened to withdraw from the convention if a proportional representation measure passed. *
**Nothing whatsoever to do with slavery.
**
Yes, ElvisL1ves, you have offered not one single shred of evidence in favor of your assertion that the Electoral College was created to keep slave states from bolting the union. You wave your hands at this and assert that you don’t want to teach a world history course (how about simply teaching a small slice of, you know, Constitutional History of the United States, a class I certainly took in college, from a quite respected professor on the subject), but you offer no evidence at all. It’s just something you know must be true.
People arguing you are incorrect have offered evidence to the contrary. That’s kind of how discussion works, at least if you expect to be persuasive.
No, plenty of lies were spread by Rove before the election too.
In fact, none were true.
I’ve offered as much evidence as your “Nopes”, but with less snark.
Not in the actual wording, as the point about euphemisms and circumlocutions already discussed, no - but that was still the fact, wasn’t it? If not, what else do you think was behind it?
Interesting you state this, when, in fact, Rhode Island came very close to NOT signing the new Constitution. It only ratified two years later (May, 1790), by a vote of 34 to 32, and only after the Governor (John Collins) changed his views from anti-federalist to support (a change which cost him his job in the next election), and some anti-federalists selected for the ratification convention stayed away (it was, btw, the second such convention that year; the first in March of 1790 failed to ratify).
So, with respect, Rhode Island was perfectly capable of not joining. Joining a thing is far different from leaving it once it’s been put in place.
And we won’t even go into the anomaly that was Vermont…
At the time of the signing of the constitution, the most populous states was
- Virginia 447,016 (slave state)
- Pennsylvania 240,057 (free state)
- Massachusetts 235,808 (free state)
- Maryland 202,599 (slave state)
- North Carolina 197,200 (slave state)
- Connecticut 183,881 (free state)
- New York 162,920 (slave state)
- South Carolina 124,244 (slave state
- New Jersey 117,431 (slave state)
- Rhode Island 58,196 (free state)
- New Hampshire 62,396 (free state)
- Delaware 35,496 (slave state)
- Georgia 23,375 (slave state)
ISTM that there were plenty of small free states in new England and some of the largest states were slave states.
So how do you figure the electoral system had anything to do with slavery?
Wasn’t it more about enticing small states to join the union?
There is an inclination by some liberals to try and associate anything they don’t like with slavery.
There is an inclination by some of the supporters of bigotry to pretend that’s not what they’re doing, and that history wasn’t what it was, or has no continuing relevance today.
The Independent Republic of Rhode Island? 
Tell us another.
No,* no* NO! The 3/5th compromise was about slavery. The Senate- the “Great Compromise” or the “Connecticut Compromise,”- was about Big vs Small states, and most of the Slave states had higher populations. JesusKreeriiist, you are not listening are you?
I’ve offered the evidence regarding Virginia and Rhode Island (a lot more evidence than you’ve offered. And I didn’t offer snark with mine.
Oh, I see how this goes. Any evidence that is contrary to your viewpoint was just people lying about their real intentions. Thus, you insulate yourself from having to deal with the facts, because they are just “fake” facts.
So let me get this straight. The compromise that created the Senate’s equal-state representation and the formation of the Electoral College came about because a slave state proposed to have all power go to states in proportion to their populations (thus hamstringing slave states under your theory). This was opposed by a proposal from a non-slave state (New Jersey), which was based upon a system not much different from the Articles of Confederation, where all states had equal voices (thus protecting “small” states like Georgia and Delaware (slave) and Rhode Island and New Hampshire (free). The whole thing was resolved by a compromise proposed by Connecticut (a small, free state).
And it should be noted that several slave states voted against the New Jersey plan more than once.
But of course, this was all part of some hidden agenda on the part of everyone to keep slave states happy… :rolleyes:
It’s clear ElvisL1ves just heard this tidbit somewhere and just accepted it without critical thinking, as it so obviously wrong on its face. “I hate slavery, I hate the electoral college. Why not hate them together? That way anyone who defends the electoral college is defending slavery. Win-win.”
I think you (and I, and anyone else) are wasting time here. He’s not listening, he has no evidence, he just KNOWS it had to be about slavery, because reasons. He can’t even be bothered to offer up a single shred of evidence, not even the somewhat spurious pieces of evidence used by those who have attempted to go back in time and re-write what was happening at the convention…
How well do you think she would have done if people knew Donna Brazile fed her debate questions and Debbie Wasserman Schultz was pulling for her? Some people would call that cheating.
I haven’t mentioned plurality or majority. I think that is about as relevant which team got more yards during a football game. Unless the difference is humongous (like one team got twice as many yards as the other team and still lost), who gives a shit?
No electoral college necessary. Just good old fashioned gerrymandering. Made possible by apathy during local state elections.
Which Kremlin lies did the Bernie bros Spread? The one they found out about in the leaked DNC emails or the one they found out about in the leaked Hillary campaign emails?
Ok, Here’s a few sidesplitters: Luxemburg. Liechtenstein. San Marino. Andorra. In fact there are almost fifty Independent nations in this world with a Population less than RI.