Former ESPN host Jemele Hill drew fact-checks after appearing on a CNN Monday night panel discussion on the Electoral College, claiming slavery was "the entire reason" the institution was created and that the system cost both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris the presidency. Historians and the election record challenge both assertions.

What Hill Said — and Where the History Gets Complicated

Hill argued during the panel that the Electoral College is "rooted in slavery" and that the country should have abolished it long ago, framing the claim partly around the two women who lost presidential races to Donald Trump. The Three-Fifths Compromise is the historical hook behind this argument: by counting enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes, it amplified the political weight of slave states and shaped how electoral votes were distributed.

That linkage is real, and historians do debate how significantly slavery influenced the system's design. But the claim that slavery was the institution's sole or primary purpose does not hold up to the broader record. The Electoral College emerged as a compromise among the Founding Fathers, who were divided between granting Congress the power to select the president and holding a direct national popular vote. Protecting smaller states from being overwhelmed by more populous ones was another explicit objective — without the weighted system, smaller states would have had minimal influence over presidential outcomes.

The Harris Claim Falls Apart on the Numbers

Hill's second assertion — that the Electoral College denied Harris the presidency — is contradicted by the 2024 results. Harris lost not only the Electoral College to Trump but the national popular vote as well. The Electoral College was not the deciding variable; she trailed in both measures. The 2016 race between Clinton and Trump does present a genuine split-result case, but 2024 does not.

A Pattern Worth Noting

The appearance follows Hill making a separate claim the prior week — that she would hold a higher-paying job for which she is "unqualified" if she were white. CNN has not addressed the accuracy of Hill's statements on either occasion. Hill did not respond to a request for comment.

The episode illustrates the hazard of compressing contested constitutional history into a single causal sentence. The Electoral College debate is legitimate and ongoing; overstating the case weakens, rather than strengthens, the argument for reform.

Related reading