Slavery, Democracy and the Racialized Roots of the Electoral College
Tuesday, 15 November 2016 00:00 By Christopher F. Petrella, African American
Intellectual History Society | News Analysis
Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, by Howard
Chandler Christy. (Image: Wikipedia)
At 11:45 p.m. on November 6, 2012, Donald Trump tweeted that "the electoral
college is a disaster for a democracy." Four years later, at 2:31 a.m. on
November 9, 2016, the Associated Press projected that Donald Trump would win
the state of Wisconsin and therefore surpass the required 270 Electoral
College votes to become President-elect. The AP tweeted: "Donald Trump is
elected President of the United States."
Though Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in the national popular vote,
Mr. Trump is now President-elect based on the indirect representational
nature of the Electoral College. There is nothing particularly novel about
this latest (un)democratic contradiction -- it happened in 1876, 1888, and
2000 -- except that it opens up a critical space for examining the
racialized genesis of the Electoral College itself.
In the aftermath of any presidential election, statisticians aim to index
the demographic features of the electorate. We have learned, for instance,
that Hillary Clinton won 88, 65, and 65 percent of the Black, Latino, and
Asian-vote, respectively, and that Donald Trump captured 58 percent of the
white vote. We also know that the white vote -- especially unprecedented
support from white women -- put Trump over the top. While these isolated
figures are certainly important for diagnosing electoral trends and
prognosticating future turnout, they tend to prevent us from considering the
historical roots of so-called colorblind instruments of US democracy like
the Electoral College.
Electoral College results, 2016. (Source: Google.)
To be clear, this critique of the racialized origins of the Electoral
College should not be interpreted as the cheap product of disappointment
over the most recent election results, but rather as an effort to tap into
what will likely be a short-lived public appetite for presidential politics
in order to explore how US political institutions are themselves always
already racialized. To be sure, race and racism in the US context have long
served as some of the most significant guarantors of democratic structures
and institutions. In short, US democracy itself is a racial project whose
fulcrum hinges on policies of inclusion and exclusion.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the provenance of the Electoral College, to
paraphrase Ronald Takaki, is grounded in questions of racialized
'insiderism' and 'outsiderism.' To this end, the Electoral College is
responsible for the fact that four of the first five US presidents were
white, slave-holding men from Virginia. The "Virginia" variable is key here,
as Virginia held the largest population of enslaved black men, women, and
children from the inception of the "peculiar institution" until the passage
of the Thirteenth Amendment.
In 1787, white men of status met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution.
Questions of elections, taxation, and governance, among others, were debated
vigorously. One of the most contentious themes considered over the course of
the four-month convention was by what process to elect a president.
Two months into the meeting, Pennsylvania lawyer James Wilson proposed
direct election of the president. Some delegates lamented that an
"uneducated" populace would be incapable of the sort of self-governance
required to ensure a salutary direct democracy. Such an elitist concern,
however, was not what occupied the minds of most delegates, and especially
those from the South. James Madison -- a slaveholder from Virginia --
worried that such a system would compromise the political influence of the
slaveholding South, a region of the country that on a eligible voter
population-basis would nearly always lose to the North in a direct election
system. Madison opined: "There was one difficulty however of a serious
nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage
was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the
latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.
The substitution of electors [through the Electoral College] obviated this
difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
In a direct election system, the North would have outnumbered the South
(which had a large population but far fewer eligible voters), whose roughly
550,000 enslaved black people were disenfranchised. Delegates from the South
generally supported Madison's idea of the Electoral College over a direct
election system because it was based solely on population volume, not
citizenship status or enfranchisement. In conjunction, and at Madison's
urging, the convention agreed to count each enslaved black person as
three-fifths of a citizen for the purpose of calculating each state's
representation in the Electoral College and in the allotment of
congressional seats.
Colonial Virginia won big under the Electoral College system: the state
occupied 12 of the 46 electoral votes (26 percent) needed to win an election
in the first round. (As a reference point, such disproportionate
overrepresentation would be tantamount to present-day California enjoying 70
electoral votes.) Whereas the Electoral College artificially enhanced the
political influence of the South, it deflated the political influence of the
North. After the 1800 census, for instance, Pennsylvania had 10 percent more
free persons than Virginia, but had 20 percent fewer electoral votes.
According to legal historian Akhil Reed Amar, "Perversely, the more slaves
Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes
it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved
North, the state could actually lose electoral votes." Simply stated, the
Electoral College incentivized the institution of slavery; it was created to
protect and propagate the enslavement of black people. The Electoral College
operationalized the 3/5ths compromise and helped to secure, extend, and
enhance the political power of the white slaveholding class whose epicenter
at the end of the eighteenth century was Virginia.
The contentious aftermath of our most recent presidential election should
challenge us to ask some inconvenient questions about the racialized nature
of our political institutions and to rethink the propriety of the Electoral
College, a retrograde political apparatus whose origins in slavery and
anti-black racism challenge the radical proposition of "one person, one
vote."
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
CHRISTOPHER F. PETRELLA
Christopher Petrella is a lecturer in American cultural studies at Bates
College. His work explores the intersections of race, state and
criminalization. He completed a Ph.D. in African diaspora studies from the
University of California, Berkeley. Follow him on Twitter: @CFPetrella.
RELATED STORIES
Electoral College Follies: How Tim Kaine or Mike Pence Could Become Our Next
President
By Gar Smith, Truthout | News Analysis
________________________________________
Show Comments
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Slavery, Democracy and the Racialized Roots of the Electoral College
Tuesday, 15 November 2016 00:00 By Christopher F. Petrella, Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid. | News Analysis
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, by
Howard Chandler Christy. (Image: Wikipedia)
. Trustworthy journalism with integrity is more important than ever.
Help Truthout keep providing a platform for reliable, independent news: Make
a donation today!
At 11:45 p.m. on November 6, 2012, Donald Trump tweeted that "the electoral
college is a disaster for a democracy." Four years later, at 2:31 a.m. on
November 9, 2016, the Associated Press projected that Donald Trump would win
the state of Wisconsin and therefore surpass the required 270 Electoral
College votes to become President-elect. The AP tweeted: "Donald Trump is
elected President of the United States."
Though Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in the national popular vote,
Mr. Trump is now President-elect based on the indirect representational
nature of the Electoral College. There is nothing particularly novel about
this latest (un)democratic contradiction -- it happened in 1876, 1888, and
2000 -- except that it opens up a critical space for examining the
racialized genesis of the Electoral College itself.
In the aftermath of any presidential election, statisticians aim to index
the demographic features of the electorate. We have learned, for instance,
that Hillary Clinton won 88, 65, and 65 percent of the Black, Latino, and
Asian-vote, respectively, and that Donald Trump captured 58 percent of the
white vote. We also know that the white vote -- especially unprecedented
support from white women -- put Trump over the top. While these isolated
figures are certainly important for diagnosing electoral trends and
prognosticating future turnout, they tend to prevent us from considering the
historical roots of so-called colorblind instruments of US democracy like
the Electoral College.
Electoral College results, 2016. (Source: Google.)
To be clear, this critique of the racialized origins of the Electoral
College should not be interpreted as the cheap product of disappointment
over the most recent election results, but rather as an effort to tap into
what will likely be a short-lived public appetite for presidential politics
in order to explore how US political institutions are themselves always
already racialized. To be sure, race and racism in the US context have long
served as some of the most significant guarantors of democratic structures
and institutions. In short, US democracy itself is a racial project whose
fulcrum hinges on policies of inclusion and exclusion.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the provenance of the Electoral College, to
paraphrase Ronald Takaki, is grounded in questions of racialized
'insiderism' and 'outsiderism.' To this end, the Electoral College is
responsible for the fact that four of the first five US presidents were
white, slave-holding men from Virginia. The "Virginia" variable is key here,
as Virginia held the largest population of enslaved black men, women, and
children from the inception of the "peculiar institution" until the passage
of the Thirteenth Amendment.
In 1787, white men of status met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution.
Questions of elections, taxation, and governance, among others, were debated
vigorously. One of the most contentious themes considered over the course of
the four-month convention was by what process to elect a president.
Two months into the meeting, Pennsylvania lawyer James Wilson proposed
direct election of the president. Some delegates lamented that an
"uneducated" populace would be incapable of the sort of self-governance
required to ensure a salutary direct democracy. Such an elitist concern,
however, was not what occupied the minds of most delegates, and especially
those from the South. James Madison -- a slaveholder from Virginia --
worried that such a system would compromise the political influence of the
slaveholding South, a region of the country that on a eligible voter
population-basis would nearly always lose to the North in a direct election
system. Madison opined: "There was one difficulty however of a serious
nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage
was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the
latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.
The substitution of electors [through the Electoral College] obviated this
difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
In a direct election system, the North would have outnumbered the South
(which had a large population but far fewer eligible voters), whose roughly
550,000 enslaved black people were disenfranchised. Delegates from the South
generally supported Madison's idea of the Electoral College over a direct
election system because it was based solely on population volume, not
citizenship status or enfranchisement. In conjunction, and at Madison's
urging, the convention agreed to count each enslaved black person as
three-fifths of a citizen for the purpose of calculating each state's
representation in the Electoral College and in the allotment of
congressional seats.
Colonial Virginia won big under the Electoral College system: the state
occupied 12 of the 46 electoral votes (26 percent) needed to win an election
in the first round. (As a reference point, such disproportionate
overrepresentation would be tantamount to present-day California enjoying 70
electoral votes.) Whereas the Electoral College artificially enhanced the
political influence of the South, it deflated the political influence of the
North. After the 1800 census, for instance, Pennsylvania had 10 percent more
free persons than Virginia, but had 20 percent fewer electoral votes.
According to legal historian Akhil Reed Amar, "Perversely, the more slaves
Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes
it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved
North, the state could actually lose electoral votes." Simply stated, the
Electoral College incentivized the institution of slavery; it was created to
protect and propagate the enslavement of black people. The Electoral College
operationalized the 3/5ths compromise and helped to secure, extend, and
enhance the political power of the white slaveholding class whose epicenter
at the end of the eighteenth century was Virginia.
The contentious aftermath of our most recent presidential election should
challenge us to ask some inconvenient questions about the racialized nature
of our political institutions and to rethink the propriety of the Electoral
College, a retrograde political apparatus whose origins in slavery and
anti-black racism challenge the radical proposition of "one person, one
vote."
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Christopher F. Petrella
Christopher Petrella is a lecturer in American cultural studies at Bates
College. His work explores the intersections of race, state and
criminalization. He completed a Ph.D. in African diaspora studies from the
University of California, Berkeley. Follow him on Twitter: @CFPetrella.
Related Stories
Electoral College Follies: How Tim Kaine or Mike Pence Could Become Our Next
President
By Gar Smith, Truthout | News Analysis
Show Comments
