No, he’s not. Dumb as fuck take.
I don’t agree with it but it’s worth reading. The crux of the argument is this:
Consider this: In 2016, Hillary Clinton famously won the nationwide popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, but lost the election to Donald Trump in the Electoral College, doing much to enflame American progressives’ distaste for the college. What’s worth noting is that Clinton’s popular vote margin that year within the borders of California was well over 4 million votes. In short, outside California, Trump won the popular vote across 49 states.
I don’t know if that makes any kind of point. Republicans don’t win national majorities. It’s not relevant which parcels of land they live on - land doesn’t vote (at least at the present, I’m sure someone at the heritage foundation is working on it)
So they’re argument is that Californians are worth less than the rest of America? Glad our votes here are worth less than one to them :/
Yeah, it turns out that changing the data changes the results 🙄
Since we’re just doing random shit and seeing what it looks like, how much did she win by if we remove Texas?
Yeah, I misread the argument and thought it was saying something more interesting 🤦 It’s actually a silly argument and now I regret posting the article, but at least there was some good discussion of how bad it is.
I am of two minds about this.
On the one hand, I am a deracinated individual. I live in a building with about a thousand other people, I don’t know any of them, and I don’t want to know any of them. I am only a little more connected to the city and state that I live in, because I don’t like the city and the state (whereas I simply don’t care about my neighbors in the building). Therefore, I am inclined to count people equally because
communities of place, belief and walk of life
simply don’t exist for me (at least not in the physical world).
On the other hand, I hate being told what to do, and I especially hate it when someone far away feels that his principles entitle him to interfere in my business. The state-level fight for high-density zoning in California is a good example of this. Towns vote against permitting high-density zoning, but people far away who don’t know or care about the residents of those towns want to force the towns to permit that high-density zoning in order to accomplish the things that the people far away want in the abstract but the people living in those towns would actually have to suffer the consequences of. This perspective does lead me to feel that small areas where people with a minority opinion actually form the majority do need to be protected.
I think the ideal solution would be to elect a president via a nationwide popular vote but also to make a deep commitment to libertarian principles of leaving people alone to live their lives as they see fit. (I expect that the latter is even less likely than the former.)
