Column: Evan McMullin — the last best hope for the Never Clinton and Never Trump masses

Independent candidate Evan McMullin speaks during a rally in Draper, Utah on Oct. 21. Two months after he jumped into the presidential race as a political unknown on the fringe, McMullin is surging in the polls in Utah and drawing large crowds at rallies.
(Rick Bowmer / Associated Press)

If you think 2016 will stop being weird come Nov. 8, please look at your calendars: This whole election process actually lasts almost an additional two months beyond that. But just because it’s been a weird year, that doesn’t mean it has to end badly. There’s reason to hope.

Consider independent write-in candidate for president Evan McMullin. He has virtually no chance of winning the election on Nov. 8, but he does have a shot at becoming president by the end of December.

It’s a long shot. Very long. But if McMullin managed the greatest upset of all time, it would be a very good thing, and not just because so many of us would rather see someone other than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in the White House.


McMullin, whom I’ve met several times, is an earnest, patriotic and brave man who spent nearly a decade serving his country undercover in the CIA. He was until recently the chief policy director of the House Republican Conference. He would not be my — or his own! — first choice for president under normal circumstances. But that horse long ago left the barn — and then got hit by a truck.

Polls show McMullin surging in his home state of Utah, where his fellow Mormons — God bless ’em — are particularly repulsed by Trump.

The McMullin scenario works like this: If no candidate manages to win 270 electoral votes, the electors — i.e. the actual people who cast electoral votes on Dec. 19 — hand the whole thing over to the House of Representatives to decide, as they did in the election of 1824.

Under the 12th Amendment, the members of Congress then must choose from the top three finishers in the Electoral College. So even if Libertarian Gary Johnson gets more of the popular vote, he’s not likely to have any electors because he won’t win any state. Meanwhile, polls show McMullin surging in his home state of Utah, where his fellow Mormons — God bless ’em — are particularly repulsed by Trump. If he wins there, he’s got a ticket to the Electoral College Ball.

So, if Clinton and Trump fall short of the 270 electoral votes needed to clinch — admittedly a massively huge “if” given that projections show Clinton grabbing as many as 341 electoral votes — the decision goes to the new House of Representatives elected next month. It will likely remain Republican, but less so than it is now. Also key in this scenario: Each state votes as a single bloc — so California and Rhode Island alike get one vote each.

I think I can skip a few steps and just assert that many representatives will refuse to ever vote for Trump or Clinton.

But what about McMullin? Here the vanilla rule might apply. Vanilla is one of the most popular flavors in America, not because it’s everyone’s favorite, but because it is the least objectionable to the greatest number of people. There are probably no Democrats who wouldn’t prefer McMullin to Trump. There are almost certainly no Republicans who wouldn’t prefer McMullin to Clinton. Picking the least objectionable option is often the essence of statesmanship. If 26 state delegations pick the least-bad option, McMullin becomes the first Mormon president.

Some would complain that this isn’t very democratic. So what?

By our contemporary standards, the founders distrusted democracy. But they had good reasons. If you think all questions should be settled democratically, let’s scrap the Bill of Rights, which elevates our most fundamental priorities out of the reach of voters pretty much forever.


Sometimes democracy steers us in bad directions. For the founders, the solution to such wrong turns wasn’t despotism, but constitutionalism — and when required, statesmanship. Imagine that in the next few days WikiLeaks releases even more information about Clinton and Trump that truly disqualifies each from higher office — but they still get millions more votes than McMullin because of early voting and blind partisanship.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind if the Electoral College rejected them both and just picked McMullin out of conscience. But let’s say they toss the decision to the House. The statesmanlike — and bipartisan — option is the least-worst alternative to a terrible situation. Providing such an alternative is why McMullin decided to run for president in the first place.

Obviously, the election experts are 99.99% sure this scenario will never come to pass. The only reason for hope: 2016 laughs at the experts.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook



What the AT&T-Time Warner merger promises — and what it threatens

Provincial feuding over Measure M will make traffic and mobility worse for everyone

It’s outrageous to take back soldiers’ bonuses