Why did Lincoln get 4 out of 7 of the electoral vote in New Jersey despite only winning 48% of the vote?

Slaves counted 3/5ths as much as a white person for the purpose of determining electoral votes.

Anything more concrete than speculation?

But why? You might as well just base voting power on value of property then.

Which was stupid. They didn't get to vote, so it was just a way for the South to inflate their numbers.
Same reason. They couldn't vote, but they inflated numbers.

Congressional representatives (and electors) have never been apportioned based solely off voting population. It's total population including non-voters (children, women, slaves, etc.).

Are they not a part of the population?

It was a compromise that was written into the Constitution in order to get the Southern states to ratify it.

Why were slaves counted as 3/5s but not women?

I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's stupid. Why base voting power off of those who can't vote? That's like me getting extra money for food because I have a larger family, but not allowing them to eat.

Neither could women which there are slightly more of than men so your argument doesn't really stand there.

They contribute to the local economy don't they?

So for reference, it's said that the electoral votes are distributed based on the vote in New Jersey but that doesn't explain why Lincoln got more electoral votes than Douglas. Also in the next election, Democrats won all electoral votes despite having only 53% of the popular vote there. So what gives?

because it wouldnt change the totals

So do cows. They can't vote.
This is Veeky Forums friend, and you need to drop the linear thinking. Slaves couldn't vote because they were seen as property. Women violent vote because they were seen as human, but lesser than man.

>slaves are cattle
oh dear...

I'm pretty sure it was because blacks were not legal citizens that they couldn't vote.

Stop being a fucking idiot. Either make a post with some substance or Fuck off. Slaves were property. Just like cattle was property. Slave owners branded their slaves to show who owned them. Much like ranchers branded their cattle to show who owned them. Like I said, don't be a fucking dunce. Either express yourself like an adult or kill yourself for being incapable.

You're right. They weren't seen as citizens. They were seen as property. It's as if that was exactly my fucking point.

You sound mad. The entirely of the African diaspora in American wasn't legally defined as property. As they were neither legal citizen that could vote. You're claiming their status was the reason they couldn't vote when it was a different matter entirely.

I am mad because you don't belong on Veeky Forums. There were plenty of Africans who held citizenship and the right to vote. The ones that couldn't vote were the ones who were "property". If you think it was "a different matter entirely" then fucking post it. I'm trying to have a discussion but I keep running into a wall. Whether it's a wall of intelligence or a wall of communication, I'm not sure. However, if you have a point. Then post it. Otherwise fuck off with your opinions.

More important question, if Southern Democrats, Northern Democrats, and Constitutional Union had formed a united front against the Republicans, could they have won?

Except the vast majority couldn't which was the standard across the board as a result. My point is that by simply granting them their freedom would not alone grant them citizenship and thus the vote. It is not a package deal.

If all parties rallied together and their votes with them. They would have had 60% of the popular vote but only 40% of the electoral vote. Lincoln won solid majorities in all major Northern states with an electoral count over 10. Even with all the opposing parties combined. The closest being Illinois with 50.7% for Lincoln. To sum up he would have won the presidency anyway with only 40% of the popular vote.

The only states that a combined effort would have won would be the entire west. Lincoln wining only 32% in California and 36% in Oregon. Totaling only 7 electoral votes which would not be enough.

meant for

1920.

The states have almost always awarded their electors on a winner-take-all basis. Whoever gets the majority (or plurality) gets all of a state's electoral votes even if they win the state by a single vote. Nowadays at least two states (Maine and Nebraska) do it in a manner meant to more accurately reflect the vote, but the winner-take-all method is the main reason you see such large disparities between the popular vote and electoral college.

Aren't they property, not citizens?

Post your statistics and sources regarding the franchise of negroes.