I have a simple litmus test for such commentaries. Does the author understand that the Electoral College is as important as the Senate or doesn't he? Mr. Whitehead, despite being a "leading advocate" of civil liberties, has no clue what purpose the EC serves today. That makes him a lightweight unworthy of further attention.

The trivial EC hit-piece (from early in 2016) that he cites shows no more grasp of the matter than Mr. Whitehead. Here’s an excerpt:

You might think Republicans who want to win the White House this year would be trying to improve that performance by appealing to residents of the Empire State. But Ted Cruz is doing the opposite: He sneered that Donald Trump would be bad for America because he “embodies New York values.” If Cruz gets the nomination, the state’s residents, from East Hampton to Buffalo, won’t forget the insult.

But you know what? Cruz doesn’t care. He has no reason to care. That’s because of a curious artifact known as the Electoral College.

Oh, I think Mr. Crux cared very much. Jews in swing states understood that “New York” was a dog whistle for “Jewish.” If insulting “New York” costs a candidate Pennsylvania, the EC will have done its job of protecting minorities against the tyranny of the majority exceedingly well. Not to recognize this possibility is disqualifyingly reductive.

Swing states are microcosms. If you can carry them, you are appealing them to as many interests as a continental system of government will permit. A national campaign would pander to a narrower majority. A civil libertarian should fear the tyranny of the majority. Any appeal to populist votes by a self-styled defender of human rights is at best foolish.