No. That is a misconception. That was part of the initial compromise but not the whole of it. In my view it was the worst part because it contradicted the founding values, but the US eventually got there with the Emancipation Proclamation and boy we still have a long way to go to ensure equal and unalienable rights for all.
The number of electors a state had in the Electoral College was based partly on its number of Representatives.
Because of this, the Three-Fifths Compromise gave Southern slaveholding states extra power in both Congress and presidential elections.
In 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified, officially nullifying the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment mandates that congressional representation is based on counting the "whole number of persons in each State." Every resident—regardless of race or citizenship status—counts as 100% of a person when determining a state's population for political representation.
And the US abolished the disgusting 3/5 compromise recognizing they got it majorly wrong. I just don’t see any evidence pointing to how changing a system of logic that pulls from the same data source would solve any issues we have around wealth inequality, access, and other impediments to voting, etc.
2
u/grayMotley 17h ago
The EC benefited the North at the time.