I was doing some reading on this, and I think you might be in error - RE: the majority determination being based on the number of votes cast versus the number of Electors by statute.
(And wouldn't you know it, I can't find the article to reference)
But I read that 2 members of the Electoral College died and could not be replaced in time, but they were still counted among the Electors, even though they did not cast votes.
Maybe you've found something more definitive in your research.
Those two electors were counted because they were appointed.
The 12th Amendment states:
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed
Appointment of the electors is done by each state "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct." (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2).
Once appointed, a state's electors count towards the total number of electors whether or not they vote. However, a state's failure to appoint electors (because there's no result or because of legal challenges) reduces the whole number of electors appointed and, therefore, the number necessary to win the election.
The president is the person who gets themajority of the electoral votes cast normally 270 (out of 538). That number need not be 270, however, and it won't be if a state fails to choose electors.
The total number cast does not play into what constitutes a majority.
I was doing some reading on this, and I think you might be in error - RE: the majority determination being based on the number of votes cast versus the number of Electors by statute.
(And wouldn't you know it, I can't find the article to reference)
But I read that 2 members of the Electoral College died and could not be replaced in time, but they were still counted among the Electors, even though they did not cast votes.
Maybe you've found something more definitive in your research.
Those two electors were counted because they were appointed.
The 12th Amendment states:
Appointment of the electors is done by each state "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct." (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2).
Once appointed, a state's electors count towards the total number of electors whether or not they vote. However, a state's failure to appoint electors (because there's no result or because of legal challenges) reduces the whole number of electors appointed and, therefore, the number necessary to win the election.
Ah ok, i was misinterpreting your phrasing:
The total number cast does not play into what constitutes a majority.