By Andrew Boyd

The present zeitgeist would seem to insist I tie this discussion of the Electoral College (EC) to the recent and ongoing fervor surrounding the Game Stop short squeeze and subsequent misbehavior of retail stock merchants like Robinhood that we might uncover at the behest of their governmental and institutional overlords, a.k.a the Sheriff of Nottingham (yes, AOC and Cruz, you’re right, we need hearings).

Indeed, the tale of Robinhood speaks to the metanarrative of our time: The struggle between institutional elites and the little guy. The Framers of our Constitution were, in the context of a tyrannical British Empire, the little guys, trying to bind together a fragile union of merry men with competing visions for the future of a nascent republic. Their answer to this challenge involved imperfect compromises, including the establishment of the EC.

The EC and other proposed solutions, including a president chosen by Congress, were also a reflection of their deep distrust of the mob, and associated concerns that unalloyed democracy would lead to mob rule. These men, it could be argued, were elites in their own right, holders of power and property with a real distrust of the capacities of the common man to make wise and informed decisions, held in check, theoretically, by the power of “faithless” electors, which isn’t really a thing any longer.

Lots of stuff has changed, including many things the Framers couldn’t foresee, like the dissemination of information via the internet -- the democratization of knowledge as it were -- or the attempts at oligarchical control of same by an elitist cadre of tech bros whose motivations, I fear, aren’t so much political as they are avaricious.  

Just like the Framers, we, as a people, need to contend with the issues of our times with careful regard for how we reconstitute our union in order to preserve its essential and foundational constructs – individual freedom (rights) and individual accountability (responsibility to one another constituted in a law equally applied).

Down to it, then: what to make of the EC in the context of our times?  On a mathematical level, the EC would seem to confer outsized power to some individuals based on their geographic location. For example, the 2016 U.S. census estimates California has 26.65 million voting-age citizens, while Nevada had 1.41 million.  Dividing those voting age populations by the number of electoral votes in each state (35 and 6, respectively) states yields 716,000 (voting age people/EC vote) for California and 235,000 for Nevada. So, a Nevadan has more than three times the voting power of a Californian. That doesn’t strike me as particularly democratic.  

It’s often argued that the EC exists in part to preserve the rights of the minority, which would be the thing you place on the other side of the scale. But is geography, in our age, a reasonable stand-in for minority interests? At a gut level, I don’t see it. 

Am I thrilled at the possibility that abolishing the EC will lead to hegemony Democratic power, or that it will subject me to the whims of coastal elitist or worse yet, global bureaucratic, overlords? Hardly. But we stand on principal, or we stand on nothing, and principles built to achieve a desired outcome are not principles at all. On that basis, I can’t honestly mount a defense for the EC.

What I will beg and plead for my more left-leaning but still classically liberal friends to consider is whether the current trajectory of streamlining voting processes, including mass mail-in balloting and increasingly lacking security measures, might be a more pressing danger to the preservation of our republic.

I’ll state emphatically here how abhorrent I found the events in the Capitol on January 6. But the dissolution of clear, common-sense and consistently observed rules and standards for the election of a president is, I fear, the ground in which the more generalized sense of disenfranchisement now grows.  

We all have within us some essential sense of what’s fair and what’s not, which is at the heart of this as well as the Game Stop saga and all the great human stories across all human existence. If winning is all, and if the rules of the game can be shaped altogether according to the desires of the victor, the inevitable outcome is a growing resentment and, ultimately, unwillingness to play the game. Proceed with all due caution. 

_____
Click on “Forum” to read Stephen Macaulay’s commentary on former President Trump’s ethics policy.