The Census is already very hard to count in many areas. Unfortunately, pretty much all of the areas highlighted in this map won’t be any better served by online surveying & questionnaires.
1 Like
A few hundred years ago.
4 Likes
We may not understand our makeup, but we sure as hell can put lipstick on a pig.
2 Likes
The idea behind an online census is to free up resources for the hard to count areas. As with any good idea, the devil is in the details but, since it appears the Republicans will control the process for 2020, this is entirely too literal for comfort.
1 Like
So did they count all the potential Black voters and then discount two fifths of them, or did they count each one that voted as being three fifths of a person? Either way, it sounds like racist bullshit.
They counted all the black people, most of whom couldn’t vote, and then discounted two-fifths of them. And yes, of course, it was racist. The point was to give white southerners greater representation in Congress and the Electoral College than they would have gotten otherwise.
2 Likes
And the Hollerith machines provided the data much, much faster. By the late 19th century, the USA had grown so large, that the census bureau was barely done counting and collating one census before the next census was due. Plus the data could be sorted for much finer variety/detail than before.
Also, IBM.
1 Like
All slaves were subject to the 3/5ths counting, but there were no extra votes, so if you had 100 slaves you didn’t cast 61 votes (60 for your slaves, 1 for you), but it meant that you had more people in the house of representatives, more electoral college votes, etc. Interestingly enough, freed black people were apparently allowed to vote? I’m not sure how much faith I’d put in their ability to exercise it, though.
In 1790, only Delaware and Rhode Island had more than 5% free blacks, so I doubt it would have mattered that much.
The 11 year hole in Canadian census data thanks to Harper agrees with this statement.
Easiest way to address a sticky issue like poverty: stop measuring poverty! Done!
3 Likes
Those are just all the illegals that commit voter fraud.
/s
1 Like
It’s curious, then, why have the 3/5 rule at all, if slaves couldn’t vote? If I were a southern representative in 1790, I’d want slaves to count as a full person for purposes of representation, appropriation, electoral college votes and so forth.
For example, in 1790, South Carolina had a total population of 249,073, of which 107,094 (43%) were slaves. Under the 3/5 rule, the total population would have been only 204,434 – reducing their effective population by almost 18%.
Well yes, they wanted that. OTOH, those in the North didn’t want to count them at all. 3/5ths was the compromise that they reached at the constitutional convention.
Exactly, and if I’m from the north I don’t want the south having all of this “population” that can not and will never be able to be politically active, it’s points to the south for nothing.
But the south was where the nation’s entire economy was at the time, and so they argued and argued until it was down to 3/5ths.
Right, but doesn’t that take away racism as a primary reason for the 3/5 rule? After all, the North didn’t want slaves to count as people at all! You could argue that southern pols at least counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. It was for venial reasons, for sure, but I don’t think you can just say “racism” & leave it at that. (I don’t mean YOU personally, @simonize)
Compared to the evil of chattel slavery, allowing their owners to be overrepresented in congress is pretty small cheese.
1 Like
But so, how is this a “… persistent misconceptions liberals and lefties have about American history.”?
Edit: Its okay, @tekk explained this particular bit of chicanery to me.
Oh, gottcha! I thought they were allowing the Slaves a say in the outcome, not just using their simple existance as a method of pumping up their seats on Capital Hill.
It helps if you redefine it too.
2 Likes
