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.

Paideia: a curriculum (in the form of an extensive reading list)

In ancient Greece, the ideal of education involved far more than the learning of facts and the mastering of skills. More, even, than the training of intellect and the honing of abstract reasoning skills. Beyond intellectual refinement and physical training, the Greek educational ideal also involved the shaping of moral character and philosophical excellence. The ideal education involved rhetoric, grammar, history, philosophy, scientific disciplines (such as mathematics, physics, geography and biology), literature, poetry, music and a variety of physical disciplines (such as gymnastics, wrestling, horsemanship and archery). All these aspects were not seen as separate, but as facets of an undivided whole. They supported and enhanced each other, jointly contributing to a complete education.

This educational ideal was called paideia.

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.

The future of Europe

Yesterday, I published an article discussing the many problems of the EU, which have until now gone unsolved due to the unwillingness of the Europhiles to accept that their utopian dreams are simply impossible. Arrogance has poisoned the European project beyond any hope of rescue, and it seems that arrogance will in the end destroy the EU altogether.

The question is now: how do we get rid of the bad, while preserving the good? Cooperation and good relations between the many states of Europe are by no means a bad thing. How can we preserve those elements, while dismantling the European bureacracy and the undemocratic power of Brussels? Well, if you think about it, it’s not that difficult. The only thing missing to achieve a peaceful and relatively painless end to the EU is the political will to go about it.

That’s certainly a problem, because the Eurocrats in charge are dead set on creating a centralized political union. I explained yesterday how their efforts are inherently counterproductive, serving only to sow futher animosity between the nations of Europe. If they continue to force their utopia on all of us, they even risk sparking off a civil war. That catastrophe must be avoided at all costs.

So how? What’s the alternative? That question is imperative, because Europhiles will repeat again and again that we need the EU, and that to dismantle it would be tantamount to economic suicide. What we need to do is prove them wrong, so everyone can see that there is a viable alternative to Eurofederalism. To that end, I’ve written this article: a proposal for dismantling the European Union in a peaceful and orderly manner. Because we can prevent the disastrous future currently awaiting Europe, and we can lay the ground work for a far better future for us all.

When will the Europhiles learn their lesson?

Countless citizens of EU-member states are asking themselves “Where are we going?”, and with good reason. The European Union is tearing itself apart through bad policy and undemocratic efforts at forced centralization of power. It is entirely unclear where this road will lead the many nations of Europe, but the notion that all of them will eventually end up in the same place is becoming increasingly unlikely. An outcome long held unthinkable – the break-up of the EU – is steadily becoming inevitable.

The Europhiles in Brussels and across the EU will hear nothing of it. Just as they have done for decades, they dismiss the notion of the EU being split up as nothing more than small-minded chauvinism. It is easy, however, to portray your opponents as small-minded. It is much harder to actually prove them wrong. In this case, it might not be possible at all: the Eurosceptics have been proven right time and again since the start of the global financial crisis.

In fact, it turns out that the “small-minded chauvinists” have, in fact, for years and years been the most forward-thinking people in Europe. It was the Eurosceptics who forsaw that expansion of the “European family” (as Europhiles lovingly call it) was going too fast: many new member states were simply not yet ready. The cultural and economic mindsets of Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe were insufficiently aligned to accommodate a grand unification project.

These warnings were ignored, but it turns out they should have been heeded instead. Similarly, the Eurosceptics warned that the institutions of the Union were not democratic enough, and that there was not (yet) enough popular support for the EU among the peoples of Europe. Again, they cautioned, more time was needed. But no – the Europhiles pushed for more centralization, at the expense of national sovereignty and popular democracy. The EU thus became a project of the elite, disliked by the people at large.

The grand misconception of the Europhiles was that they would be able to shape Europe as they wanted: that they could force their utopian ideal on the people without any resistance at all, and everyone would come to love their creation as much as they did. Simply put: the Europhiles behaved like a bunch of arrogant tossers. As a result, they – and everyone else in Europe – are now faced with the results of their hubris. Many countries weren’t ready for a monetary union, and precicely due to that single currency, their economic woes are also ravaging the countries that were ready. The people have come to hate the EU, rather than love it.