That's true, but sort of misses the point. Most regions have a dominant industry, and these industries change over time. Silicon Valley, to take your example, used to produce actual silicon devices. Los Angeles used to be a major petroleum exporter. Those jobs left, but no one cared.

People argue over "appalachia" and make false promises about coal (coal is dying whether anyone wants it or not -- other sources are simply cheaper now) because it workers a swing demographic in presidential elections.

People shouldn't make false promises about industries that are not (and should not) come back. My point is that there is a huge incentive to do so, and Trump doing it isn't some dramatic change from what's come before.

Let me guess, you also think that putting a global warming denier as the head of EPA is also not a "dramatic change"?

Indeed before Silicon Valley they used to grow apricots in huge orchards in Santa Clara Valley. [0][1]

[0] http://www.siliconvalleyhistorical.org/ [1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54c17ee8e4b0fe251ef64...

That's true about Appalachia, and it's gonna need to change.

That's the artifact of electoral college. It is frustrating that the whole country policy is dictated by several thousand votes in couple swing states.

> That's the artifact of electoral college.

"Artifact" implies that this is an unexpected, or unwanted result—a bug, if you will.

But the inability of just a few big states to dictate national policy to everyone is the entire purpose of the electoral college. It's entire existence is to produce this "artifact".

For example, Clinton is winning the popular vote—in California, by ~3 million votes. If you exclude CA and instead look at the other 49 states (plus DC), Trump is winning the popular vote by around 1 million people (and the electoral college, too—CA or not).

That's just one reason we don't have a popular vote for the presidency: one state can absolutely dominate the rest of the country—effectively making their votes irrelevant.

I live and vote in CA, so while it would make my vote for president a lot more valuable to do away with the electoral college, I'd much rather let everyone else have a say, too, and keep the Republic intact—even if occasionally other states don't vote the way I'd like.

Other states' votes aren't irrelevant without an electoral college. They're just directly proportional to their population. Why is it fair to make Californians' votes worth less than those of residents of other states, just because more people happen to live inside its borders?

Perhaps we should subdivide California into hundreds of "states" to give its citizens more voting power.