My long-suffering and abused editor really likes it when I look at both sides of an issue, something about “journalism” and all that (ed: well, duh). He also likes it when I get into obscure political science theory and toss in a few dead philosophers’ comments for context (ed: well…). And so today I’d like to talk with you about what might be called the “other side” of my column of not too long ago in which I warned about the danger hidden in getting rid of the Electoral College. As it turns out, Colorado is now one of the states on the cutting edge of EC reform, and our governor recently signed into law a major reform of the way we vote for presidents in Colorado – maybe.

I’m a pretty serious fan of the Founding Fathers and their arguments, and my saintly editor really loves it when I toss in words from back then like “vituperative” and “rapacious” (ed: again, not so much). When writing on the Constitution and how we pick our POTUS, it is important to remember the key democratic principles the Founders placed in that remarkable document. But it is also important to remember that the Founders lived in a world where information could travel no faster than a galloping horse or a ship at sea, and the notion of a national government meant something very different for a population of roughly 2-3 million back in the day, as opposed to modern times when we have roughly the same number of federal employees as we had in the nation at our Founding.

Which brings me, of course, to Facebook.

I decided long ago that I would never, or at least very rarely, post political commentary on FB. As I have these twice-weekly opinion columns here on Colorado Politics, I have ample opportunity to spout off, though I do find far fewer cat videos here. As a result of keeping politics out of my FB feed, I have been able to keep friends from across the very wide spectrum of political beliefs that exist in our state, our nation, and out world. A recent post by a dear friend who is also a hard-right Trumpy kind of guy got me to thinking about the EC again, and so I’m back with a revised view – being fair and balanced – of the Electoral College, because Colorado may be changing in a very important way.

Just a few days ago, Gov. Polis signed the National Popular Vote bill into state law. It seems that the Democrats, having taken over both houses of the state legislature and keeping the governorship, have been moving quickly and decisively to implement their campaign promises. The GOP is crying ironic crocodile tears that the Dems are actually doing the work of governance. Imagine that!

Anyway, one of the bills that passed and is now law is the aforementioned National Popular Vote law. Simply put, if enough other states pass near-identical laws, Colorado would join the group of states that award the state’s entire EC vote (9 for Colorado) to the winner of the national vote. In other words, the person who gets the most votes, wins the election.

The post by my righty friend was to oppose the bill and declaring that he didn’t want “California and New York to pick the president.” Now, let’s think about this one a bit. The best argument for the EC is that it makes smaller states like ours important in many close elections. Close contests greatly enhance the importance of small states’ EC votes.

My friend was arguing, essentially, to keep that system going. But let’s think about it another way, and that way is to elect the president based on who gets the most votes. You know, majority rule! And any opposition to the new law is essentially saying that for one office and one office only, we won’t use majority rule to pick the winner.

How is letting the majority of Americans pick the president somehow un-American? The flip side to not letting California and New York “pick” the winner is to say that our votes here in Colorado should count more than voters in other bigger states. Is that really the lesson we want to teach here?

If majority rule, with proper Madisonian safeguards, is the proper way to elect all but one of our leaders, shouldn’t presidents be elected the same way? Why should we keep this one artifact of the Founding in the 21st century?

You may recall the last words of the brilliant book “Animal Farm,” which read “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Are some states more equal than others?

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.