It is profoundly weird to describe filling statewide offices based on the a democratic vote as "ruling from afar". The alternative filling offices based on whomever wins the majority of the majority of counties would allow a tiny minority of the electorate to decide the fate of all their fellows. It allows the minority to rule from afar instead of the majority.

As described the majority of the the majority is literally four single digit four percent of the electorate. The obvious intent is that at present the majorities views align with the minority and it should change the rules such as to prevent usurpation even should they lose the popular mandate.

It presages a future Texas where the majority of Texans want to move forward and the way is barred for a generation.

It is exactly by proportion as if we should decide that the only people who are allowed to hold nationwide office is someone who wins Minnesota no matter how the vote goes elsewhere. It's a world in which Walter Mondale wins Minnesota and we declare him president despite losing every other state to Reagan.

Then someone pops up and defends Minnisotism somehow as preventing the subjugation of Minnesota.

> Until the West Coast states are safe to be openly anywhere right of center, I’ll take rural Texas or Fort Worth for good or ill.

It's pretty safe... I live in Portland and am not shy about telling people I think that social security and the Wagner Act and OSHA are all unconstitutional, and that I think government should never provide welfare, and nothing bad has happened to me. In fact earlier this year I requested trial by combat from the Portland taxiation office, both on the phone and in a written letter, such that my victory could exclude me from paying Supportive Housing taxes; the only outcome was the lady on the phone laughed at me.