>Also, the "CA and NY would run the US" is an extremely weak argument. It's logically equivalent to saying that Texas and Oklahoma are currently running the US,

>Also, the "CA and NY would run the US" is an extremely weak argument. It's logically equivalent to saying that Texas and Oklahoma are currently running the US, since their electoral votes are sufficient to swap the winner from Trump to Clinton. Actually, I don't think it's equivalent, since basically no Congressional majority or Presidency has been won without the South for the past 50 or so years. You can actually estimate which party will be dominant in an American party system by looking at who consistently holds the South, irrespective of how other regions vote. So California and the Northeast can consistently vote one way, and it basically just doesn't matter if the South happens to disagree.