In blue, we have the US states that have a smaller population than Los Angeles County. This is an enlightening map in the context of the debate about whether or not the Electoral College should perhaps be abolished.

The issue people have with the EC is that it leads to unequal representation: it entails that the vote of a person in a low population state is weighed more heavily than the vote of a person in a high population state. Of course, constitutionally speaking, the states elect the president. The people of each state send Electors, who will vote for a presidential candidate on that state's behalf. Still, the people of the low population states still do get more 'elector per capita' than the people in high population states. They get more bang for their buck (or in this case, for their vote).

However.. if you simply get rid of the EC, every single election will be decided by California, New York, Texas and Florida. All campaigns will focus there, and the rest of the states will become largely meaningless (politically speaking). Generally speaking, only the interests of those four big states will be considered when political decisions are made. This is also very far from equal representation.

So whatever you do, it seems, the current system will be unfair. As far as I can tell, any real solution would require a more fundamental (indeed drastic) reform. There are only two solutions I can think of that would solve the issue of representation:

1. Cut up the states with large populations and merge the states with small populations. Considering that the USA's largest city by population (NYC) has c. 8,5 million inhabitants, and that such a city would be hard to divide into multiple states, this number would become the "state population standard" by default. NYC would become a city-state, and the rest of the USA would be re-organised into 37 other states, each with roughly 8,5 million inhabitants. Some would be small (centred on a big city), others would be vast and largely rural. Nevertheless, each would have roughly the same population, so the same representative weight, regardless of whether or not there's an EC.

2. Radically decentralise the USA, so that 90% of all political decisions are made on a state or local level. Have the federal government reduced to main (national) infrastructure, the FBI, the US Marshals, foreign affairs and the military. That way, the 'weight' of any given state simply becomes far less important, because nearly all of politics plays out within the states themselves.

Personally, I'd suggest combining the two above ideas. Radically decentralise and re-organise the states at the same time. Why? Because lots of states have both progressive (often urban, high population) areas and conservative (often rural, low population) areas. Consider coastal California and inland California, for instance. Separating these areas would, combined with decentralisation, mean that in every new state, the vast majority of the population would get exactly the politics they'd like. Los Angeles could be a wildly progressive place, while inland regions in northeastern California could be part of a completely separate conservative state. And because the USA would be very decentralised, none of this would have undue influence on the rest of the Union.

Perhaps there is some other, better way to cut this Gordian knot of representative imbalance, but if so, I've yet to find it. As far as I'm concerned, the best solution is to bring politics closer to home.

Imaginary victims

It's very interesting how there are always people who completely warp historical reality to suit their political agenda. I just now came across a bizarre claim by a Native American action group, claiming that European settlers in the USA (not the Americas as a whole, just the USA!) have historically killed 50 million Native Americans. And that's with disease not even included: they purely mean the purposeful killing of natives.

50 million. What a number! But a number out of thin air. The truth is that, after the Old World diseases had burned their way through the New World, there were only about 10 million Native Americans left in all of the Americas! Perhaps, if we're charitable, some 3 million of those lived in what is now the USA. How can you murder 50 million in a region where only 3 million exist? How could that be done? Do tell.

Either out of incompetence or out of wickedness, these 'activists' with their (too-)big claims are conflating certain numbers to fit their own narrative. The truth is that much larger numbers of Native Americans than those c. 10 million have indeed historically existed... but they died in vast multitudes due to disease. In all likelihood, Old World diseases killed c. 90% of the pre-contact population of the Americas. If the post-disease population is c. 10 million, that would make the pre-contact population c. 100 million.

Needless to say, there is a lot of debate about that. Historiographers once tended to consider numbers like 2 or 3 million when estimating how many Native Americans there must have been in 1491. But Henry F. Dobyns rather convincingly made the case for a number between 90 and 110 million, spread across the Americas.

Even the modern-day "low counters", who are sceptical of such high claims, simply believe that disease killed fewer people, like 50% for instance. (That's about the lowest credible estimate in use today.) So there are those who believe that disease killed 90% of the pre-contact population, leaving behind 10 million or so. And then there are those who believe disease killed perhaps 50%... leaving behind 10 million or so.

This is important to note, because this is where those 'activists' get it all wrong. In truth, the low counters simply believe there were much fewer pre-contact natives than the high counters do. That is the point of contention. But the 'activists' muddle the numbers. They claim the pre-contact numbers of the high counters (100 million) and the death rate of the low counters (50%) and claim that post-disease, there were some 50 million natives left.

That's simply not the case. And even then, that would be a number for all of the Americas, and not just for the USA.

Whether disease killed roughly 10 million or roughly 90 million or some number in between... that's still being debated. [1] But that there were roughly 10 million natives left in total after the disease had burned its way through the population is not under discussion.

Of those remaining 10 million, Europeans no doubt killed quite a lot. Although the fact that there are about 69 million Native Americans around today (which means considerable population increase from those 10 million), the amount killed by Europeans must not be overestimated. We are probably talking about hundreds of thousands. Probably not about multiple millions. Certainly not about tens of millions, which weren't there in any case.

-----------

[1] A footnote regarding the discussion about pre-contact numbers. Personally, I tend towards the position of the high counters. The effect of disease cannot be underestimated. By the accounts of Hernando de Soto (the conquistador, obviously, not the economist), who traveled the southeastern (later-to-be) USA in the 1500s, the place was filled with settlements. Hundreds of towns, from Florida to the Mississippi. When latter-day explorers reached the area again in the 1700s, they found... nothing. Except that De Soto had not made these villages up. Their archeological remains have been found. As have the mass graves that started appearing after he passed through.

The thing is, he brought livestock along, and animals escaped into the wild. They spread European disease, which killed countless natives and utterly destroyed many communities. This all happened without any Europeans there to witness or actively influence events. De Soto was gone when the dying started, and by the time other Europeans reached the area again, it was all over...

Patriots and Tyrants

Robert E. Lee was the foremost general of the Confederate forces in their desperate war for independence from northern tyranny, which sought to illegally subdue them by armed might after they had chosen to separate themselves from the central government in Washington DC. His words, quoted above, are a clear indication of his character and his motives. In a time when Abraham Lincoln is often (wrongfully) regarded as a heroic figure, and the Southern secession is (equally incorrectly) viewed as evil and treasonous, we should take some time to explore Lee's reasons for supporting Virginia in its secession and opposing Lincoln in his war of conquest.

General Lee, an educated man, knew very well the shape of history— and he tried his best to fight in the name of his sovereign state, Virginia; defending it against the despotic ambitions of Lincoln and his centralist ilk. The victory of the northern aggressors, in their war against the southern states that peacefully and lawfully seceded, remains a great tragedy. That war destroyed the last bastions of honour and aristocracy in North America, thus sealing the fate of the United States. Rather than saving the Union, Abraham Lincoln and his butchers destroyed it, and put a centralist colossus in its place. This was their plan from the outset, and fighting that depraved ambition was the South's foremost reason to secede in the first place. (Anyone who claims that it was primarily about slavery is either wholly ignorant or wholly evil.)

Everything Lee predicted has come true, and the United States are fated to perish— at least in their current form. Observe that I write "their form", because the states ought to be referred to in the plural. But nowadays, we all too often hear "the United States is" rather than "the United States are". That, too, is the legacy of northern aggression and centralism. And it is exactly that unitary, centralist moloch that will ultimately perish. One may hope that one day, there will again be sovereign and voluntarily united states, once more capable of bringing something worthwhile into this world.

Until that day comes, we should do our best to remember the courage and honour of general Lee, in a world where uneducated scoundrels are tearing down the statues that were once put up the memorialise him and his fellow heroes of independence.

Californian secession? Great! But let's re-draw some borders first...

So. The California secession movement starts gathering petition signatures. I think this is an awesome idea. Not because I think it'll be good for California. No. California will turn into a socialist shithole, that can no longer feed on the rest of the union. But it will be GREAT for the USA. Without California's electoral votes, there will never be another Democratic president.

Regardless of such considerations, I will simply state that I generally defend the right of secession simply because I support the principle of it. With that in mind, I must observe that when right-wing activists quite recently suggested that Texas should secede (during Obama's administration), they were called traitors and racists.

A typical case of the left-wing "it's okay when we do it!"-mentality, then. But never mind that. Let them go ahead. Let them secede. So much the better for the rest of the USA. But before we start cheering for the secession of California, I think it's wise to reconsider the whole idea of the so-called "left coast". After all, it's not like all of California is left-wing. No; it's the coastal strip and the southern portion of the state. The northeastern part is solidly Republican. The left-wing part is just far more densely populated, so they force the entire state to always go Democratic. Considered in that way... California should be split up before any vote regarding secession takes place.

In the same way, sparsely populated Nevada is almost always forced to go left-wing, just because densely populated Las Vegas always goes that way. And the northeastern states of Washington and Oregon are also pulled to the left by their coastal cities, while the rural hinterland always votes Republican.

I propose the following, for the consideration of my American friends: that the borders of these four states are radically re-drawn, to create a Democrat-dominated "California" and "Oregon", and a Republican-dominated "Nevada" and "Washington". The two left-wing states should then be given the option to secede (or to join Canada and Mexico, respectively).

Even if the Democratic states stay with the union, this will at least free the Republican parts of the current states from Democratic overlordship, turning four Democratic states into two Democratic and two Republican states.

The map would look a bit as pictured here, with the Democratic states in shades of pink, and the Republican states in shades of yellow. I have based the border on multiple electoral maps, after figuring out which regions generally vote Democratic, and which regions generally vote Republican. I admit it's just a crude concept formulation, but it gets the idea across.