[smug]

Quite frankly, if the far left succeed in taking over Washington, DC, the red states should secede.

If!, the far left succeeds in taking over Washington DC, it will mean that the people in 5% of the United States land mass have control of the majority of the Electoral College. When this happened in 1860 the relatively new Republican Party figured out the "Gordian" math. Back then it only disillusioned 1 region of the country. Of course now as back then, the opposing party's fractured state is contributory.

[x]

If!, the far left succeeds in taking over Washington DC, it will mean that the people in 5% of the United States land mass have control of the majority of the Electoral College. When this happened in 1860 the relatively new Republican Party figured out the "Gordian" math. Back then it only disillusioned 1 region of the country. Of course now as back then, the opposing party's fractured state is contributory.

That's kind of a strange standard -- vote by land masses rather than by voters. It may give desireable results, but it can't be justified nowadays.

It's pretty clear though, that the Lincoln vote in 1860 came from more than 5% of the country's land mass, if we go by counties. The Republicans did very well in Northern farming areas.

But will that really happen this year? For the Democrat to win, he'd probably have to win some rural counties from the Republicans, as Clinton did, and that makes the map look different than it did for Kerry or even Gore.

Also, I'd want to know whether you're concerned about tyranny of the majority in all cases, or only when you're in the minority.