Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Having studied American history quite extensively, my impression from what I know about the Constitution negotiations is that the slave states didn't expect their slave populations to count at all. The original plan floated was that House representation would depend on the number of eligible voters, not on the overall population, of a state. Which actually makes more sense than what was done.
So I think the were quite happy with the compromise. The net effect was still to increase the power of Southern voters by 60% compared to those in free states.
Fun Mormon fact: the huge birth rate in Utah, from its founding to the present day, was built on Brother Brigham's intent to increase Utah's House representation and Electoral College votes. Of course, he had originally fiercely resisted Utah becoming part of the US at all (some say that he didn't want to lose his harem, bigamy being illegal in the US), but once he was pretty much persuaded at gunpoint, he wanted to get Utah the best deal possible.
I don't know if distributing representatives in apportionment to voters rather than population would have been a good idea. If I recall correctly land ownership was a requirement to vote at the time. Not sure if non-land-holding citizens would tolerate not having representation.
