by Nick Malino
Subsequent to the November 8, presidential election it has become quite fashionable to demand the abolition of the of the electoral college in favor of a National Popular Vote (“NPV”), and these objections usually start and end with the argument, “One Vote Per Person.” What can be fairer? Who can argue with that? However, why would one rich little state turn their future over to the imperial rule of a large but culturally and politically atypical state like California?
The electoral college provides small states a bit of leverage and protection from the very issues with which the framers were most concerned – the tyranny of the majority. In an NPC scenario, there would be little reason for any candidate to consider any of our concerns or issues. The only reason a candidate would visit Connecticut would be to do some fundraising.
The “One Vote Per Person” concept is not unimportant, but our country is a union of 50 states with different laws, different qualifications for suffrage and different resources, talents, and issues. The electoral college represents a balance of the differing interests of the states and the “One Vote Per Person” concept. If we were to abandon it simply because an election did not go the way we would have liked, would be a mistake. If we decide to throw our electoral votes away and give up what little sovereignty, our rich little state has left, we may as well hang a “kick me” sign on our butt, move the nation’s capital L.A. and change its name from the “United States of America” to simply “America.”
And, oh yeah, Connecticut, learn to say, “Baaa Baaa”.