- [Instructor] When you first learn about
the Constitutional Convention in 1787
and the debates and the compromises,
it's easy to assume that, okay,
that's interesting from a historical point of view,
but how does it affect me today?
Well the simple answer is, it affects you incredibly,
those compromises that were made over 200 years ago.
So the most obvious question is,
well what were those compromises?
Well, to even start to appreciate the compromises,
let's start with this picture, or this chart,
of the census in 1790, so it gives a pretty good snapshot
of what the United States looked like
after the Constitution was ratified.
So, as you can see, the population as a whole
was much smaller than it is today,
it was roughly, a little under four million people,
today the United States is over 300 million people,
and then you also see a pretty big
population difference between the states.
You have big states, like Virginia,
which, at the time, had 750,000 people,
and then you had small states like Delaware,
that had 60,000 people, or you have Rhode Island,
that has a little under 70,000 people.
And so you can imagine, the Virginians,
or the people from Massachusetts might have said,
hey we want representation in the legislative,
in Congress, to be based on population.
It should be, you know, we have a lot of people,
we should get more of a say,
while someone from, say, Delaware,
might say, wait, hold on a second,
under the Articles of Confederation
we were a sovereign state, we don't wanna
just become, you know, do whatever the Virginians
or the people from Massachusetts wanna do,
we wanna have a more equal say,
and of course, the big state folks would have said,
whoa, no, then your population, people in your population,
in your state, are going to be overrepresented.
And so this was a serious debate,
and it resulted in what is called the Great Compromise.
The Great Compromise, which is probably
the most cited compromise coming out of the US Constitution.
And it's the notion of, okay, well let's have it both ways.
In the legislative, let's create two houses,
let's do one house that is based on population,
so the House of Representatives,
where Virginia will get more representation than a Delaware,
but let's make another house called the Senate,
where every state has equal representation,
where you have two senators per state.
And to appreciate that this is,
even today, a controversial thing,
here is an article from the New York Times, from 2013.
This is an article that's talking about perceived
inequalities of per person federal funding,
and it says, and the article is literally named,
'Big State, Small State,' "Vermont's 625,000 residents
"have two United States senators,
"and so do New York's 19 million.
"that means that a Vermonter has 30 times the voting power
"in the Senate of a New Yorker just over the state line,
"the biggest inequality between two adjacent states.
"The nation's largest gap, between Wyoming and California,
"is more than double that."
So they're making the argument that, at least in the Senate,
a person in Vermont has 30 times the representation
as a person in New York,
and if you compare Wyoming and California,
it's a factor of 60.
And they say, "The difference reflects the growing disparity
"in their citizens' voting power, and it is not an anomaly.
"The Constitution has always given residents
"of states with small populations a lift."
So this is coming straight out of the Great Compromise,
"but the size and importance of the gap
"has grown markedly in recent decades,
"in ways the framers probably never anticipated."
So you can imagine, this is the New York Times,
so they probably might favor a little bit
more representation for New Yorkers,
but it's an interesting thing to think about.
The Constitution was written over 200 years ago.
Could they have predicted how much the United States
would grow, or get a movement to the cities,
even in that census of 1790,
we saw a factor of a little more than 10
between a Virginia and, say, a Rhode Island,
but now we're talking about a factor of 60
between California and Wyoming.
There's no right answer, here,
but it is something very interesting to think about
and as you can see, it's something that people
are even talking about today.
Now, the other significant compromise
that is also talked a lot about, these days,
is the notion of the electoral college.
So, people who are more in the anti-Federalist camp,
they were more in favor of a participatory democracy,
a direct democracy, where you have one person one vote,
and whoever gets the majority of the vote in the country,
well, maybe they should be president.
But Federalists, especially folks like James Madison,
they were a little suspicious of just the crowd voting
whoever they wanted.
They wanted it to go through a filter
with the idea that maybe that filter
could temper the passions of the crowd, so to speak,
and so they devised this system
where it isn't one person one vote,
but every state has a certain number of electors.
So you vote for electors, and then the states send them
and then they can place their vote for President.
It turns out that most states have decided
to have a winner take all policy,
so that maybe they could matter more
for the Presidential election.
But what that's resulted in, is if you take a big state,
like Texas, and just draw a quick drawing of Texas,
or a big state like California, right over here,
in a winner take all, as soon as you cross 50%,
you get 50.1% in either one of these states,
and in other big states, it's true in most states,
well then you'll get all of the electors for that state.
So even if you get 70% of the vote in Texas,
or 70% of the vote of California,
it's equivalent to getting 50.1%.
The reason why this has resulted in some significant debate,
in the recent past, you had two major elections
where the electoral college majority
was different than the popular majority.
You had Bush vs. Gore in 2000
and you have Trump vs. Clinton in 2016.
Now, two of the other major compromises
that came out of the Constitutional Convention
are less debated today, and that's a good thing,
because they were resolved, finally,
in 1865 by the 13th amendment,
that came out of the Civil War.
And these were around slavery.
You have the 3/5 Compromise,
and this is, actually, still
more of a notion around representation.
Even in the House, how do you determine
the population that's gonna dictate
how many representatives you get?
What about slaves?
If you look back to this chart right over here,
notice some of the southern states
had a significant fraction of their population
that were slaves.
And so you can imagine that their delegates
were saying, hey, we wanna count them in the population.
They didn't want them to vote,
but they said, hey, when we decide
how many representatives we get,
we wanna count these 293,000 people in Virginia
when we decide how many representatives they get.
And you can imagine, other states,
either just because they didn't wanna
dilute their own representation,
or maybe even some of them might have felt
morally against something like slavery,
said, wait, no, you shouldn't get a benefit
because you're doing this thing called slavery,
and so they were against it.
And so the compromise, and once again, James Madison
was significantly involved here,
was the 3/5 Compromise, that for determining representation,
a slave would count as 3/5 of a person,
which is offensive to our sensibilities,
but that's the compromise they came up with,
but it didn't become, it wasn't an issue anymore
once slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment.
The last major compromise that people will talk about,
and this one also revolves around slavery,
is the importation, importation of slaves.
During the Revolution, because Great Britain
had such a significant role in the slave trade,
the colonies, or the states, the nascent states,
were pretty unified around not participating,
at least with Great Britain,
but once the Revolution was over,
this became an issue again.
Some states did not want more importation of slaves,
some did, and so the compromise that was reached is
that at least for 20 years,
the Congress would not pass a law
that is prohibiting the importation of slaves.
And it turns out, almost exactly 20 years later,
once that expired from the Constitution,
under Thomas Jefferson, they did
ban the importation of slaves officially,
although it still continued to some degree,
at a much smaller level.
I'll leave you there, but the big appreciation here
is that those debates that we talk about,
the Great Compromise, the electoral college,
these debates around representation,
that we saw over 200 years ago,
these are things that people still feel passionate about,
and they still debate today.