The worst part? None of those details even matter. There’s a much lower bottom line. Lower even than whitey kept the black man, skeet skeet skeet skeet mothafucka.
Suppose the morons were all right, right on every account. None of those reasons could possibly justify ignoring the popular vote. One man should have one vote, period. Let’s take a premise of theirs, and say it’s right—that rural votes for no good reason should be worth much more than urban ones. Okay. Now, by virtue of this not being the popular vote anymore, there’s cases where the results are different from the popular vote. And what do we see there? A time where the minority of voters imposed their views on the majority. No matter how you cut the cake, that’s what you have. It’s a tautology. It’s a basic definition. And there is no conceivable way to justify it.
“The two party system is good.” So good that we should overthrow the will of the people? “It preserves the federal system.” Is the federal system so holy that it means more than what the people want? “It gives minorities louder voices.” …See? Even if you buy every one of their absurd arguments, there’s no argument that can undo, “WHAT THE FUCKING HELL, YOU ASSHATS, THAT WASN’T WHAT WE VOTED FOR.” Which comes out as a muted roar, when you dampen the voices of your people (possibly by transforming them into mute dead Californian Hispanics).
You can argue about sectionalism and be right all day, and still be wrong up against the reality that a person from Wyoming should never get to shout their ignorant opinions 6 times louder than a Californian. If your system is different from one man, one vote, it is wrong. All men created equal. It’s fucking simple, people—try not to overthink it.
The 40% of Georgians who are Democrats and the 40% of Californians who are Republicans will never, ever matter under this system. It’s not just that a Wyoming Republican is 6 times louder than California Democrat, but also that they’re infinitely louder than a Utah Democrat or an Idaho Libertarian. One man, in those cases, gets no vote at all. And they know it, too—it hurts turnout, it hurts activism, it prevents the California Republican from ever being represented by the President of the United States. Because nobody gives two shits about that 40% of California. Let me put that into perspective: 40% of California is around thirteen million people. Thirteen million voiceless people. Against that many, how do you even justify giving Wyoming’s five hundred thousand any voices at all? If they get no voice, then who should?
What’s worst, if a line was drawn and a new state made that split California into two smaller states, those thirteen million would matter in new and completely different ways. Thirteen million people would make up the 5th most populous state.
When you get down to it, our state boundaries are arbitrary. Lines are drawn in the sand all the time by politicians to separate us into convenient districts that give Democrats and Republicans “safe” districts and assure that the status quo will be, by and large, upheld, and thus protect our politicians from us citizens getting too civically-active. When this happens on a congressional district-level, it’s called Gerrymandering, and is universally and unanimously acknowledged as a bad thing. When it happens on the national level, it’s called the Electoral College, and morons defend it.
“Gerrymandering” comes from the resemblance of a district to a dragon (“salamander”) in times of yore. Some states, like Maryland, do in fact look pretty absurd and dragon-like. I propose a new term for the Electoral College: “Marylandering.” Also, alternatively, “Rape-Lady-Liberty-with-Excitement,-Vigor,-and-a-Shovelmandering.”