In the decision on the question of representation, the debate focused on the slaves who exist in the population of a state and which led to the formation of the three-fifths compromise. Under this agreement, each state had to count three-fifths of its slaves out of its total population. Prior to this agreement, the slave states called for an increase in their representation in Congress by counting all slaves in the community. On the other hand, opponents have argued that slaves are not citizens and therefore have no rights. It was not necessary to count them in the context of the population. Was this the intention of the founding fathers? Edwards is dubious because, as he points out, the majority of Americans, at the time of the constitutional congress, came from rural areas, not urban areas. „No one thought about protecting the interests of rural areas,“ Edwards says. „The interests of the rural area were predominant at the time.“ The problem was referred to a commission made up of a delegate from each state in order to reach a compromise. On 5 July, the Committee presented its report, which became the basis for the „great compromise“ of the Convention. The report recommended that each state have the same voice in the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons, each state should have one representative for every 40,000 inhabitants,  slaves should be counted as three-fifths of one inhabitant and that the money bills should come from the House of Commons (not subject to a change by the upper chamber). The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, the Great Compromise of 1787 or the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement between the large and small states, which defined in part the representation of each state in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and the legislative branch. It happened in 1787. The compromise on Connecticut resulted from a debate among delegates about how each state could be represented in Congress.
The Great Compromise led to the creation of a two-chamber congress. The House of Representatives, which is determined by the population of a state, was also created. The agreement kept the legislation bicameral, but the House of Lords had to change to accommodate two senators to represent each state. The agreement reorganized the U.S. government structure and struck a balance between densely populated states and their demands, while taking into account the least populated state and their interests. Exactly 200 years ago, the authors of the U.S. Constitution gathered at Independence Hall reached an extremely important agreement. Their so-called „Great Compromise“ (or Connecticut compromise in honor of its architects, S.G.S.
MPs Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut) offered a dual system of congressional representation. In the House of Representatives, each state would be allocated a number of seats relative to its population. In the Senate, all states would have the same number of seats. Today, we believe that this regulation is self-evident; in the summer of 1787 welk-hot, it was a new idea. Perhaps the biggest debate held by delegates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the number of representatives of each state in the legislative branch of the new administration, the U.S. Congress. As is often the case in government and politics, the solution of a great debate required a great compromise – in this case the Great Compromise of 1787. At the beginning of the Constitutional Convention, delegates appeared at a single-chamber congress made up of a specified number of representatives from each state. „The founders could never imagine… the large population differences of the states that exist today ,“ explains Edwards. If they happen to live in a state of population, you will have a broader say in the U.S.
government. When the Connecticut compromise was voted on on July 16, the Senate resembled the Congress of Confederations. In previous weeks of the debate, James Madison of Virginia, Rufus King of New York and Governor Morris of Pennsylvania strongly opposed the compromise for this reason.  For the nationalists, the vote of the Convention in favour of compromise was a crushing defeat.