The New York Times wants voters in New York City and Los Angeles to determine the presidential election. Since the election, the media has attempted to whip the American public into an ignorant frenzy about the Electoral College. They’ve mostly succeeded. Center-left voters feel disenfranchised and frustrated, even though the rules are the same this year as every other year.

Here’s how, after Hillary losing the electoral vote yesterday, the New York Times wants things to go:

Today the college, which allocates electors based on each state’s representation in Congress, tips the scales in favor of smaller states; a Wyoming resident’s vote counts 3.6 times as much as a Californian’s. And because almost all states use a winner-take-all system, the election ends up being fought in just a dozen or so “battleground” states, leaving tens of millions of Americans on the sidelines.

There is an elegant solution: The Constitution establishes the existence of electors, but leaves it up to states to tell them how to vote. Eleven states and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes, have already passed legislation to have their electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement, known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact, would take effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes, currently 270, signed on. This would ensure that the national popular-vote winner would become president.

Conservative opponents of a direct vote say it would give an unfair edge to large, heavily Democratic cities and states. But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas? A direct popular vote would treat all Americans equally, no matter where they live — including, by the way, Republicans in San Francisco and Democrats in Corpus Christi, whose votes are currently worthless. The system as it now operates does a terrible job of representing the nation’s demographic and geographic diversity. Almost 138 million Americans went to the polls this year, but Mr. Trump secured his Electoral College victory thanks to fewer than 80,000 votes across three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

What would it look like if the NYT’s dreams come true?

1. Donald Trump would have spent all his time in 10 liberal counties in two states instead of 10 states. Both candidates would have camped out in California and New York. There’d be no work in any other states.
2. Policy positions would move far to the left to satisfy the liberal cities citizens.
3. Federal money would make New York and Los Angeles like Washington, D.C. Shiny, resources-soaked, castles of wealth. Other states would be left out.
4. The entire country, not just the middle of America, would be ignored.
5. Presidential candidates would be completely out of touch with Americans across the country. The forgotten needs of the Rust Belt would never be remembered. There’d be no motivation to check in on these areas.
6. The country would be pushed to more violent means to be heard. One of the benefits of cyclical campaigning in the primaries and the general election is that the candidates must go to and listen to the needs of citizens in nearly every state.

The New York Times editorial board views these consequences as perks. They’d like America to look like them. Far from their lofty proclamation that, “The system as it now operates does a terrible job of representing the nation’s demographic and geographic diversity,” should their reforms take place, ideological diversity would be sacrificed.

It’s clear that the pointy heads in charge at the Gray Lady want a world with no more than one point of view. Theirs. The quickest way to force that view on the Republic would be to get rid of the Electoral College.