The other day, I had attended a Zoom presentation discussing Germany's electoral process followed by what amounts to a sales pitch for ballot initiative in the upcoming Massachusetts election on Ranked Choice Voting. (In another post, I gave, what I hope is an accessible verbal i.e. no math description of RCV and inherent flaws.) After the Q & A, the RCV advocate plugged a new bill, Fair Representation Act which reads as follows:

     Fair Representation Act

This bill requires (1) that ranked choice voting (a system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference) be used for all elections for Members of the House of Representatives, (2) that states entitled to six or more Representatives establish districts such that three to five Representatives are elected from each district, and (3) that states entitled to fewer than six Representatives elect all Representatives on an at-large basis.

     A fuller text is available at the Congress.gov which the RCV advocate did not include has an additional paragraph:

The bill also requires that congressional redistricting be conducted in accordance with a plan developed by (1) a state-established independent commission; or (2) if such a commission is not enacted, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3057 

     I applaud the Democrats/Leftists in their tenacity at getting what they want. The bill introduced by some Democrat, probably with some idiot Republican co-signing for bipartisan appearances. 'Idiot' because any Republican support of this bill is co-signing their extinction. The bill is being sold, in part, as suggesting how impractical for a single individual can represent the thousands or millions of diverse political opinions in some pre-defined region and therefore need more Representatives; the idea being in a area like San Francisco that leans politically Left, there ought to be a couple of Republicans or a Libertarian to represent their minority voices. Nice in theory but flawed in practice.

     Take the first line in the proposed bill. Enforcement of RCV encourages stacking the  proverbial deck. For any one congressional seat, half a dozen Democrats and Green Party candidates to one or even two Republicans does not stand a fair chance in a RCV scheme. "But it could happen he other way," an imagined interlocutor may argue. Yes, in a particular district but not in aggregate.

     Say, for a given region composed of some number of sub-regions that side with political group A. Unless one can prove something of a Simpson's paradox happens every time, this implies that region will side with political group A. The second line along with the last paragraph ensures a gerrymandering of said 'districts' promote an over-representation of one political side over the other based upon population density. Again, using San Francisco as example, the number of those who lean politically Right can be counted with an amputated hand whereas the number of those Left leaning requires Graham's number notation just to write down their total.

     With more representation from high density regions -- 'districts', Democrats/Leftist gain more seats in the congressional House of Representatives. This entitles an increase numbers in the Electoral College.

     The Democrats/Leftists are very clever while Republicans are stupid. Such an assessment stems from observation of the unwavering teleological ambitions of the Left versus the complacencies demonstrated by Republicans. They, Republicans, are the proverbial frog in the boiling pot who seem to fail at noticing what the other side is doing and when they finally do realize it is too late.

     I made the mistake of noting the Democrats/Leftist had a two prong attack toward gaining and maintaining power via the taking over Texas and demolishing the Electoral College. With the 'Fair Representation Act', they are trying to game the Electoral College system.

     The first tactic is securing the Popular vote. Listen up, Black people, Candace Owens is correct. Within a generations time, your voice will be irrelevant. Already since 1965 Immigration Act, the move at supplanting the Black voice began. Kennedy's Immigration Act designed to reverse immigration moratorium imposed by Eisenhower was about gaining power*. Another argument on that line https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUU2iWxrH2M

 
     Second, secure the Electoral College which the Democrats/Leftists are doing in two ways, so I had thought. (i) So nota bene how there is much talk about abolishing what is regarded as an antiquated scheme or (ii) 'fixing' the Electoral College. The former is the nuclear option, total abolishment of the EC shifting dependency on the Popular vote.

     In short, the Electoral College was the Founding Fathers' way of thwarting tyranny of the majority and giving voice to the sparely dense regions of the country this way Wyoming has a voice with California. Without the EC, candidates need only campaign in the more populace states and national elections would be decided by a handful of states i.e. New York, California, Florida, and Texas.

     On the other hand, if the Democrats grow in sufficient population in Texas, then they can turn that once Red state into a Blue state thereby giving them a lock on the Electoral College. Notice already how Texas is pink; at this rate in a generations time, Texas will be a Blue state.

      Finally, which I discovered only recent, is the third tactic at not fixing, in case unable at abolishing the EC, is hacking the EC gaining strength in numbers, literally. The Fair Representation Act bill is just that form of hacking the EC to gain numbers over the Republicans in the more populace dense regions of the country. More concrete, a state like California can send more Representatives boosting their electoral college votes while diminishing Wyoming's, all under the guise of needing more representatives to reflect the political ideological diversity of the state but drawing the 'districts' in such a way so to lock in overrepresentation of one side of the political spectrum.

*Unless I am experiencing a Mandale Effect, I swear I had stolen this argument from someone else. I seem to remember, or phantom, having seen a Prageu U style video digest explaining the history of immigration in the US incluiding Eisenhower's immigration moratorium and Kennedy’s 1965 bill designed to increase Democrat voters upin realizing his side was dwindling in numbers. Pat Buchanan is the closet I can find now that has made similar point but no short video with animated narration. So for now, I shall take credit until such video resurfaces.