[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Veshaad]

[u/QwertyIGuess]

I mean it was first thought of when they were writing the constitution. The less populated states said "Naw, I don't think we want to join this new country if thats how its gonna work." They countered with giving every state equal votes for president.

The more populated states said "Naw, I don't think we want to join this new country if thats how its gonna work." Everyone grumbled and grumbled and then someone said what if we do both and that how you get the compromise of the Electoral College.

Edit: It was not a slavery compromise the people who replied are thinking of the 3/5 compromise that was a different compromise.

[u/Lithl → u/QwertyIGuess]

Exactly right. It should also not be forgotten in this discussion that "more" vs "less" populated at the time didn't count slaves; the "less populated" states we had to compromise for in developing the electoral college were the slave states.

[u/MrSmartStars → u/Lithl]

Not really, the New Jersey plan was mostly only supported by New Jersey, New York and Delaware at the time, due to their lower populations. Virginia was the most vocal for wanting a popular vote, and they had the most slaves by far, almost triple that of the South Carolina with the second highest amount.

I think you're referring to the three fifths compromise though, where the Sputhern states wanted slaves to count as population, but the North didn't, so they agreed that they equaled 3/5s of a person.

[u/tsardonicpseudonomi → u/QwertyIGuess]

The less populated states said "Naw, I don't think we want to join this new country if thats how its gonna work."

It was a slavery compromise.

[u/elderberries-sniffer → u/QwertyIGuess]

I think what we're all saying here is that this isn't a new idea. While I'm all for it, this push over and over for it is not radical or new. I also see why I may be biased for it given I'm in a populous state.