My point is that the alternatives to a slave being worth 3/5 of a vote for apportionment purposes were a) a slave being worth a full vote, giving the slave states that much more power, or b) possibly no United States at all. Having slave not being counted as a vote at all for apportionment was never going to happen.

And no, the Electoral College wasn't something that the slave states wanted and the free states opposed. As I said, it was a compromise between big states like Virginia (slave) and Pennsylvania (free) versus small states like New Jersey (free) and Delaware (slave). Virginia (and several small but fast-growing southern states) wanted completely proportional representation (benefiting from its large slave population); Delaware and New Jersey wanted each state to be equal; the Connecticut compromise gave one chamber of Congress to each method, and in turn became the method by which the Electoral College apportions votes for the presidency.

Let me repeat:

* The Electoral College was not created or designed to protect slavery, or somehow enshrine it in the Constitution.

* It, and the composition of the two chambers of Congress, were created to give both large and small states a say in governance.

* To the extent the three fifths rule affected the Electoral College, it reduced the slave states' power versus what they wanted, which was a purely proportional system including slave populations.