> If this were the case you'd expect to see a lot more faithless electors in our history than we have seen. ...other than the large numbers in the late 1700s a

> If this were the case you'd expect to see a lot more faithless electors in our history than we have seen. ...other than the large numbers in the late 1700s and early 1800s, you mean? And in any case, "intent" and "actual practice" were pretty different here. But that doesn't mean that the Connecticut Compromise [0] (which split the US legislative body into the House with representation apportioned by population and the Senate with set representation per state) was solely or even primarily due to slavery. And once you had that, using the total of Senators and Representatives for your number of electors makes a good amount of sense. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise