2 ms·

I have, and you're absolutely right. As an individual (and with an understanding of just how horribly gamed the system is around my vote) I'm gonna go ahead an

I have, and you're absolutely right. As an individual (and with an understanding of just how horribly gamed the system is around my vote) I'm gonna go ahead and live where the living's attractive to me. Wyoming does not make that cut. TX, NC, VA also fail the personal sniff test, but no judgments against those who choose to live there. Just not my cuppa. Were I to have "economic incentive fund creation" money, though, I would for sure consider looking at the least populated states to throw that weight against, as your per capita change in demographic would be greater. That said, I don't, and even if I did, there are far more effective ways to spend money if political influence is your game. Hell, if I do ever have that kinda dosh (I won't) I'll just take a saunter down K street and buy me some influence, cause that's the American Way(tm).

sudosteph 6y ago
Fair enough. I guess my contention was that if you wanted your thought experiment to be successful, it seems wiser to: 1. Choose a state that is more appealing to people in general so they don't just leave immediately for a job elsewhere (ie, states that already have a trend of large population growth are growing because they are generally desirable. TX, NC and VA all are growing very rapidly, WY is not). 2. Don't aim for the least populated. You just need to be able to make up the difference to be able to swing it. Due to demographic trends, TX, NC, and VA are already on track to swinging eventually - but a bump of 150k voters could accelerate the timeline by a few years. Bumping the timeline for one of those states also translates into significant electoral college advantage. 3. Recognize that from a culture and infrastructure perspective, current residents of Wyoming would probably not take kindly to their population being suddenly outnumbered by coastal elites and would make this plan difficult for you. TX, NC and VA already are used to having tons of transplants from the north, so Californians would not be anything new or special.
- pksebben 6y ago
  See, this is why I like it as a thought experiment. I hadn't considered the potential for fertile territory / preexisting demographic trends to contribute to snowballing - you make a really good point there. I sorta feel like that view reflects an actual reality, too, rather than an academic musing. Fingers crossed for the future. As for [3] - and fie on me for being a little kneejerk about this - but if the problem at hand is the amount of outsize electoral influence we all have to put up with from folks in sparsely populated places like wyoming, vermont, etc., then they'll just have to put up with the rest of us moving in and planting flags... ...in that totally hypothetical universe that will never happen... ...cause you're right, I am not moving to Wyoming.

sudosteph 6y ago

Fair enough. I guess my contention was that if you wanted your thought experiment to be successful, it seems wiser to: 1. Choose a state that is more appealing to people in general so they don't just leave immediately for a job elsewhere (ie, states that already have a trend of large population growth are growing because they are generally desirable. TX, NC and VA all are growing very rapidly, WY is not). 2. Don't aim for the least populated. You just need to be able to make up the difference to be able to swing it. Due to demographic trends, TX, NC, and VA are already on track to swinging eventually - but a bump of 150k voters could accelerate the timeline by a few years. Bumping the timeline for one of those states also translates into significant electoral college advantage. 3. Recognize that from a culture and infrastructure perspective, current residents of Wyoming would probably not take kindly to their population being suddenly outnumbered by coastal elites and would make this plan difficult for you. TX, NC and VA already are used to having tons of transplants from the north, so Californians would not be anything new or special.

pksebben 6y ago
See, this is why I like it as a thought experiment. I hadn't considered the potential for fertile territory / preexisting demographic trends to contribute to snowballing - you make a really good point there. I sorta feel like that view reflects an actual reality, too, rather than an academic musing. Fingers crossed for the future. As for [3] - and fie on me for being a little kneejerk about this - but if the problem at hand is the amount of outsize electoral influence we all have to put up with from folks in sparsely populated places like wyoming, vermont, etc., then they'll just have to put up with the rest of us moving in and planting flags... ...in that totally hypothetical universe that will never happen... ...cause you're right, I am not moving to Wyoming.