Latest posts by Tamika Morrison (see all)
- Beyonce’, Bruno Mars & Chance The Rapper Dominate at the 2017 Grammy Awards
"Queen Bey" Hailed her Throne, Bruno Mars paid Tribute to Prince and Chance the Rapper took us to Church- February 13, 2017
- Longtime Anchor, Tamron Hall Leaves NBC’s ‘The Today Show’
Blindsided by the Network's Hiring of Fox's Megyn Kelly, Tamron Abruptly Left Her Position- February 2, 2017
- Get Involved! Two Political Apps We Need in the Age of Trump
It's Time to Fight The Powers That Be!- January 31, 2017
America is still reeling from the results of the 2016 Presidential Elections. It’s been a domino effect as the five stages of Grief.
From protests turning to riots and children of color being taunted by acts of ‘white power,’ it seems we are spinning on our heads.
It’s obvious the People of The United States chose the most qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton, as our chosen president with the ‘popular vote.’ But this thing called the Electoral College keeps taking our power away and validating the very claims that the ‘election is rigged,’ ‘my vote doesn’t count,’ etc.
Many people are looking at the Electoral College and asking why we have this system. How is it possible to exercise your right to vote and show that a popular vote elected Hillary Clinton but Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States.
So, why do we operate on a system other than a direct democracy?
One popular argument is that the Founding Fathers simply did not trust the voting populace to be informed. While that argument made sense in the late 18th century when information was local and not easily accessible, that argument died in the election of 1800 with the rise of the national party system and the 12th Amendment.
So what happened?
We can look back to the convention in Philadelphia for our answers, as Virginian James Madison pointed out that the divide between Northern and Southern states made direct election impossible. “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes,” Madison explained.
The problem, then, was that the South could not count the slave population for their votes because slaves could not vote. But because of the three-fifths compromise, they could count their slave population when determining representation in Congress and in the Electoral College, thereby giving the South more political power.
In late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “the representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.”
And yet for over two centuries, this is the system we still use to elect our president. Are we up for the fight to change these laws rooted in a racist past?
This article was developed in part by an article that appeared on The Grio.