Your view on “never happen” because the small states won’t agree to it assumes there is some “authority” that will force CA to align with someone else’s viewpoint.
Well, of course you can always secede, and in the 21st century, I would not advocate the use of force to prevent it. But I would point out to you that if the 10th were in legal force and the roundtripping of money to washington and back were ended, it wouldn’t matter nearly as much who the President was. (I would add here that in any Constitutional Convention, I would want a clause that would limit the power of the POTUS to use the military without a declaration of war. Enough of these infinite “force resolutions” that keep us at constant war.)
Another solution might be more states. The Draper proposal in CA made sense, splitting the state into regions, and states with a predominant urban area that swings the votes (NY and IL come to mind)
On the rest of your post I have no major quarrel, although I think it is amusing that the same ideas that were called “crazy” by the left when espoused by Texas over the last two decades now seem to coming into mainstream thought on the left.