I haven't done a detailed analysis of the political impacts, but just looking at the map and having some knowledge of the political geography of the State, it looks like it would probably be a win for Republicans in the Senate and Presidential elections -- going from one solid Blue state to a either a 3/3 or 2/4 split of Blue and Red states; the Blue regions of California are largely concentrated in "Silicon Valley" and "West California".
Not sure about that. Breaking it down, I think that all six areas would go Democrat - the Republican bastions of San Diego, Inland Empire, Central Valley, and Greater SLO are all jerrymandered into the larger Democratic areas of LA, Sacramento, and Santa Barabara.
Silicon Valley: Strong Democrat
West California (Santa Barabara, right?): Medium/Light Dem
Humboldt may be strongly Democratic but the rest of the proposed state of Jefferson is quite conservative. The proposed "state of Jefferson" has actually been around for quite a while and includes some conservative areas of southern Oregon as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_%28Pacific_state%29
Sure (though its a horrible name for the Greater Bay Area as a state.)
> West California (Santa Barabara, right?): Medium/Light Dem
West CA is the big state in the proposal [1] -- it includes LA. Its pretty solid D.
> Jefferson (Humbolt?): Strong Dem
If it was just Humboldt and Mendocino, sure. But the rest of Jefferson is strongly Republican. Overall, Jefferson seems pretty red.
> South California: Strong Dem
South California is strong alright -- strong Republican. The Democratic-leaning parts of Southern California are in West California in the proposal.
> Central California: Medium Dem (because of Sacto)
Sacramento County itself is only weakly Democratic (Going for Dems in Presidential elections every election since 1992, but for Republicans for Governor every election since 1982 except 1998 and 2010) -- and would probably become less Democratic if a lot of the current state government headquartered there was redistributed out to the other new states.
But, in any case, Sacramento County isn't in Central California in the proposal, its in North California.
The counties that are in Central California in the proposal would make it a solid red state.
> North California: Solid Dem (?)
North California's is probably the most competitive state of the six. Its got some strongly Democratic counties, some strongly Republican ones, and Sacramento, which we discussed earlier. Its the one I see as potentially swinging the balance between 4/2 in favor of Republicans to a 3/3 balance.
But, either way, its a win for Republicans in the Senate (+2 net margin for them if it goes from 1/0 in California to 3/3 in Six Californias) and potentially much bigger win in terms of Presidential electoral votes.
I ran the numbers based on voting percentages from the 2012 presidential election. I also added a rough guess at expected House members; hard to guess the breakdown given gerrymandering. Anyhow, yeah, this marginally tosses some electoral votes to the Republicans and you have to expect that South California would be more heavily contested so a bit of a tossup. Central California too, but South California is the big deal.
DEM REP DEM % REP % POP HOUSE
Jefferson 175,551 187,898 48% 52% 949,240 1
North California 889,742 599,778 60% 40% 3,742,229 5
Central California 542,933 573,944 49% 51% 4,124,776 5
Silicon Valley 1,904,135 608,154 76% 24% 6,597,332 9
West California 2,543,219 1,157,864 69% 31% 11,335,455 15
South California 1,798,705 1,712,320 51% 49% 10,504,924 14
> I ran the numbers based on voting percentages from the 2012 presidential election.
The 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections (that is, the votes for President specifically, not the 2008 and 2012 elections in general) have most parts of the state voting substantially more Democratic than normal (either past Presidential elections or non-Presidential elections in the same period.)
That may be a durable Presidential realignment, but I'd be a bit skeptical of that; even if it is, those last two Presidential elections are probably understate the Republican position for anything but Presidential elections (if its not a durable Presidential realignment, it overstates the Republican position even there.)
Technically, going from the voting records, the split could result in some deeply red states. Cut SF and LA and their blue surroundings into states and their are a lot of traditionally red counties left. Some county splits would result in an even greater political split.
[edit] the map given in the proposal is not really that good based on voting / land use - industry. California is more vertical than horizontal and coastal / interior divides.
This would be "dark pattern" approach to load the Senate. Yeah it would be great for the squaky wheel, but at the federal level CA needs no more resources.
Top Blue - I believe this is a mountainous region, not much industry.
Purple - Massive forest area (on the coast at least), also small population and not much industry
Yellow - North Bay, San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Sacramento. Lots of industry, technology and money. Large population as a whole spread out fairly evenly across the region, so lots of medium sized towns and small cities (S.F, Oakland, San Jose, Palo Alto, etc.etc.). Industry includes the big names you know, Google, Facebook, Apple, as well as large research facilities (I believe NASA has a large centre there). Lots of Universities as well.
Red - Some farm-land, mountainous further inland. I believe cattle, cheese, and some fruit orchards.
Green - Great farmland. Grapes and wine region, orchards, lots of cattle land. Moderate populations, towns like San Luis Obispo (great part of California if you haven't visited).
Orange - Massive populations of Los Angeles also medium sized cities of San Diego, Palm Springs/Desert. Massive industry throughout the area serving the population and the industries of Los Angeles. LA is a massive manufacturing hub (clothing, automobiles, the list goes on and on). Massive sea port at Long Beach (there may be others too).
On the practical side, a division into 6 parts
avoids the usual North/South argument, or the less
frequent North/Central/South version, and could be
walked back to a 5, 4, or 3-way split.
That said, I recall a survey not long after Prop 13 that had
Californians liking a 2-way split, as long as the
part that each respondent lived in 'got' Disneyland,
and the other part got Sacramento. This proposal seems
about as likely to happen as that one.
no this is about over regulation massive corruption and complete lack of any in sac or southern to address the real issues facing the people here, its about lack of representation and those who wish to free themselves from the out of control government, liberals = ignore corruption because they worship the institutions of government .
The Jefferson State lives here. http://youtu.be/MMnRZXz51WE
"Blank is about blank" statements have no real meaning; you'll rarely find them in use outside politics, where they enjoy extreme popularity due to the difficulty of their conversational negation.
Puerto Rico already voted in favor of becoming a state in 2012. The only thing stopping it from happening now is a simple majority vote of Congress[0].
Personally, I think giving Puerto Rico, a territory that already must obey federal laws, the ability to vote on said federal laws is a much higher priority than splitting up the states that we already have.
...which is to say, of course, that I imagine that none of these will happen anytime soon.
[0] As best as I could tell, the threshold for statehood really is this low.
> This is just an attempt to get attention. States can't just decide to split themselves into multiple states, it requires federal legislation.
It requires both State action and federal legislation. But the State action is clearly a required step.
> The only state that can split itself up is Texas, which was part of the agreement to bring the Republic of Texas into the union.
As your own link notes, that agreement specifically cited that it could only be done subject to the requirements of the Constitution, which would seem to mean that Texas can do it exactly as much as any other state can -- that is, with action of the State legislature and the federal Congress.
“The status quo is just not going to work,” said draper. “The existing breadth of industry and various interests in California is untenable.”
Are there specific examples of problems that splitting CA would fix? It seems that a split would make many of these new states more extreme than the average of old CA, but perhaps that is a good thing.
> “The status quo is just not going to work,” said draper. “The existing breadth of industry and various interests in California is untenable.”
If true, that makes the proposed state of North California a problem, since, while much smaller, it includes much of the breadth of industry and interests of the whole existing State -- the whole Urban-suburban-rural spread, the whole coastal-interior spread, etc.
I don't agree with his assessment of the problem, but if I pretend for a moment that I did, I can't see how his proposal solves it.
And by "breadth of industry" he means 'Hollywood' vs 'Silicon Valley'. Everything else is just a bunch of plebian service and food industries. The military industrial base is also not a single-geographic location, but instead rather spread out and wide ranging.
Government spending across California could be prioritized differently.
Central California farm communities would get more money diverted to waterways and agricultural projects. Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for. Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries.
Status quo is nobody being quite happy with the status quo because those jerks from <insert region where you don't live> lobbied enough for <some cause you don't care much about>.
> Central California farm communities would get more money diverted to waterways and agricultural projects. Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for
Internal to California, a lot of the tax base comes from urban centers that would no longer be part of the same state. Federal dollars might get spent differently, I guess, but they'd also be allocated differently, and the more populous states would have at least somewhat more lobbying power.
So, yes, while the new states would be able to prioritize more independently, it seems likely that the pie they're drawing from would be more limited -- possibly much more so.
> Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries.
No tax base problem here, so this is potentially true, but I'm not sure it's one to put in the plus column.
> Central California farm communities would get more money diverted to waterways and agricultural projects.
Well, except that Central California is a giant desert, and all the significant water sources would be out of state. California water policy is largely driven through the federal government now, and splitting California up into six separate states (and, particularly, splitting the main water corridors each up into multiple states) is going to move the locus of even more of the decision-making to Washington, rather than increasing local control.
> Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for.
Even most of the "Northern" California regional transportation issues would, under the proposals, span some combination of Silicon Valley, Central California, and North California.
> Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries.
Southern California already drives statewide policy, as a consequence having the vast majority of the population (and, consequently, voters and seats in both houses of the legislature.)
> Status quo is nobody being quite happy with the status quo because those jerks from <insert region where you don't live> lobbied enough for <some cause you don't care much about>.
As if Marin and Sacramento Counties have more commonality of interest than San Francisco and Los Angeles.
> Are there specific examples of problems that splitting CA would fix?
Not anywhere in any article I've seen -- just more platitudes about the size of government and vague allusions to California being ungovernable. Particularly frustrating in an article that announces it gives details.
There are indeed some issues that make California difficult to govern, but if I were picking them out, I'd put limits to the power of legislators to make policy without supermajorities and the initiative process itself pretty far above the idea that we just don't have enough state lines in the region ("Hi, I think state government is a terrible problem and to solve it we should make 5 more of them.")
It seems like a good guess that what Draper really means by "ungovernable" is that as the balance of power and philosophy now lies, there are some personal business or political goals that he's unable to bring to pass, despite significant wealth or influence.
Starting with 3 would be a lot more interesting. Los Angeles metropolitan area (Southland), San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area, and then the rest.
I've thought for years, California needs to be two states, split at Monterey (everybody would want to keep Monterey so split it). The politics of Southern California (ok LA) is completely different from regular California, especially regarding water rights.
It would not be a bad idea to hand over an area east of Sacramento to be joined with Nevada.
As far as naming goes, Silicon Valley sucks. Silicon Valley is too small to be a viable state economically. A state needs some diversity in it. A coastal chunk from Monterrey Bay north up to and including Napa would be more realistic but that is not Silicon Valley.
I'm curious how much agriculture propped up the California economy during the last few tech busts. As a California native, the divisions are naive bordering on idiotic. A state of Silicon Valley that were to have a tech downturn would have serious problems with a lack of diversity in industry.
But, hey, Tim Draper has way more money than I do and California has a history of letting those with lots of money float silly ideas.
Agriculture in California is relatively unimportant, according to 2008 BEA statistics cited at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gross_Domestic_Product_of_... - just 2% of California's notional GDP. I think I have read 4% from another source, but either way it is marginal.
I tend to think that the comments on electoral statistics have this right. It is an attempt to tilt the Senate and Electoral College.
There is a reason Washington, D.C. Does not have voting rights or substantive representation in congress and that is that republicans don't want to give more votes to democrats. Republicans would never let something like this happen
50 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 90.5 ms ] threadSilicon Valley: Strong Democrat
West California (Santa Barabara, right?): Medium/Light Dem
Jefferson (Humbolt?): Strong Dem
South California: Strong Dem
Central California: Medium Dem (because of Sacto)
North California: Solid Dem (?)
This is not true. Orange County and San Diego County can go Republican and drag LA County with it.
> North California: Solid Dem (?)
There are plenty of libertarians here as well.
> West California (Santa Barabara, right?): Medium/Light Dem
They call this "Central Coast". It's moderate.
> This is not true. Orange County and San Diego County can go Republican and drag LA County with it.
Well, except for LA being in West California. Which makes "South California = Strong Democrat" even less true.
you can see that is not the case.
LA is included in West California separate from SD/Orange County/etc. South California would be Republican.
Sacramento is included in North California, not Central California. Central California would be Republican.
At the very least, 2 of the 6 would be Republican leaning.
Humboldt may be strongly Democratic but the rest of the proposed state of Jefferson is quite conservative. The proposed "state of Jefferson" has actually been around for quite a while and includes some conservative areas of southern Oregon as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_%28Pacific_state%29
Sure (though its a horrible name for the Greater Bay Area as a state.)
> West California (Santa Barabara, right?): Medium/Light Dem
West CA is the big state in the proposal [1] -- it includes LA. Its pretty solid D.
> Jefferson (Humbolt?): Strong Dem
If it was just Humboldt and Mendocino, sure. But the rest of Jefferson is strongly Republican. Overall, Jefferson seems pretty red.
> South California: Strong Dem
South California is strong alright -- strong Republican. The Democratic-leaning parts of Southern California are in West California in the proposal.
> Central California: Medium Dem (because of Sacto)
Sacramento County itself is only weakly Democratic (Going for Dems in Presidential elections every election since 1992, but for Republicans for Governor every election since 1982 except 1998 and 2010) -- and would probably become less Democratic if a lot of the current state government headquartered there was redistributed out to the other new states.
But, in any case, Sacramento County isn't in Central California in the proposal, its in North California.
The counties that are in Central California in the proposal would make it a solid red state.
> North California: Solid Dem (?)
North California's is probably the most competitive state of the six. Its got some strongly Democratic counties, some strongly Republican ones, and Sacramento, which we discussed earlier. Its the one I see as potentially swinging the balance between 4/2 in favor of Republicans to a 3/3 balance.
But, either way, its a win for Republicans in the Senate (+2 net margin for them if it goes from 1/0 in California to 3/3 in Six Californias) and potentially much bigger win in terms of Presidential electoral votes.
[1] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/13-0063%20%...?
The 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections (that is, the votes for President specifically, not the 2008 and 2012 elections in general) have most parts of the state voting substantially more Democratic than normal (either past Presidential elections or non-Presidential elections in the same period.)
That may be a durable Presidential realignment, but I'd be a bit skeptical of that; even if it is, those last two Presidential elections are probably understate the Republican position for anything but Presidential elections (if its not a durable Presidential realignment, it overstates the Republican position even there.)
[edit] the map given in the proposal is not really that good based on voting / land use - industry. California is more vertical than horizontal and coastal / interior divides.
Top Blue - I believe this is a mountainous region, not much industry.
Purple - Massive forest area (on the coast at least), also small population and not much industry
Yellow - North Bay, San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Sacramento. Lots of industry, technology and money. Large population as a whole spread out fairly evenly across the region, so lots of medium sized towns and small cities (S.F, Oakland, San Jose, Palo Alto, etc.etc.). Industry includes the big names you know, Google, Facebook, Apple, as well as large research facilities (I believe NASA has a large centre there). Lots of Universities as well.
Red - Some farm-land, mountainous further inland. I believe cattle, cheese, and some fruit orchards.
Green - Great farmland. Grapes and wine region, orchards, lots of cattle land. Moderate populations, towns like San Luis Obispo (great part of California if you haven't visited).
Orange - Massive populations of Los Angeles also medium sized cities of San Diego, Palm Springs/Desert. Massive industry throughout the area serving the population and the industries of Los Angeles. LA is a massive manufacturing hub (clothing, automobiles, the list goes on and on). Massive sea port at Long Beach (there may be others too).
On the practical side, a division into 6 parts avoids the usual North/South argument, or the less frequent North/Central/South version, and could be walked back to a 5, 4, or 3-way split.
That said, I recall a survey not long after Prop 13 that had Californians liking a 2-way split, as long as the part that each respondent lived in 'got' Disneyland, and the other part got Sacramento. This proposal seems about as likely to happen as that one.
The only state that can split itself up is Texas, which was part of the agreement to bring the Republic of Texas into the union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_divisionism
Puerto Rico already voted in favor of becoming a state in 2012. The only thing stopping it from happening now is a simple majority vote of Congress[0].
Personally, I think giving Puerto Rico, a territory that already must obey federal laws, the ability to vote on said federal laws is a much higher priority than splitting up the states that we already have.
...which is to say, of course, that I imagine that none of these will happen anytime soon.
[0] As best as I could tell, the threshold for statehood really is this low.
It requires both State action and federal legislation. But the State action is clearly a required step.
> The only state that can split itself up is Texas, which was part of the agreement to bring the Republic of Texas into the union.
As your own link notes, that agreement specifically cited that it could only be done subject to the requirements of the Constitution, which would seem to mean that Texas can do it exactly as much as any other state can -- that is, with action of the State legislature and the federal Congress.
As your link indicates, a more accurate telling is "The only state that some proponents argue can split itself up is Texas".
The Civil War pretty much screwed this up and the division can happen elsewhere because of precedent.
Oh the irony of this statement...
Are there specific examples of problems that splitting CA would fix? It seems that a split would make many of these new states more extreme than the average of old CA, but perhaps that is a good thing.
If true, that makes the proposed state of North California a problem, since, while much smaller, it includes much of the breadth of industry and interests of the whole existing State -- the whole Urban-suburban-rural spread, the whole coastal-interior spread, etc.
I don't agree with his assessment of the problem, but if I pretend for a moment that I did, I can't see how his proposal solves it.
Central California farm communities would get more money diverted to waterways and agricultural projects. Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for. Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries.
Status quo is nobody being quite happy with the status quo because those jerks from <insert region where you don't live> lobbied enough for <some cause you don't care much about>.
Internal to California, a lot of the tax base comes from urban centers that would no longer be part of the same state. Federal dollars might get spent differently, I guess, but they'd also be allocated differently, and the more populous states would have at least somewhat more lobbying power.
So, yes, while the new states would be able to prioritize more independently, it seems likely that the pie they're drawing from would be more limited -- possibly much more so.
> Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries.
No tax base problem here, so this is potentially true, but I'm not sure it's one to put in the plus column.
Well, except that Central California is a giant desert, and all the significant water sources would be out of state. California water policy is largely driven through the federal government now, and splitting California up into six separate states (and, particularly, splitting the main water corridors each up into multiple states) is going to move the locus of even more of the decision-making to Washington, rather than increasing local control.
> Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for.
Even most of the "Northern" California regional transportation issues would, under the proposals, span some combination of Silicon Valley, Central California, and North California.
> Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries.
Southern California already drives statewide policy, as a consequence having the vast majority of the population (and, consequently, voters and seats in both houses of the legislature.)
> Status quo is nobody being quite happy with the status quo because those jerks from <insert region where you don't live> lobbied enough for <some cause you don't care much about>.
As if Marin and Sacramento Counties have more commonality of interest than San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Electoral politics. It cuts both ways, though: many in CA would love to see TX split into several weaker states.
Not anywhere in any article I've seen -- just more platitudes about the size of government and vague allusions to California being ungovernable. Particularly frustrating in an article that announces it gives details.
There are indeed some issues that make California difficult to govern, but if I were picking them out, I'd put limits to the power of legislators to make policy without supermajorities and the initiative process itself pretty far above the idea that we just don't have enough state lines in the region ("Hi, I think state government is a terrible problem and to solve it we should make 5 more of them.")
It seems like a good guess that what Draper really means by "ungovernable" is that as the balance of power and philosophy now lies, there are some personal business or political goals that he's unable to bring to pass, despite significant wealth or influence.
Does that even mean something?
It would not be a bad idea to hand over an area east of Sacramento to be joined with Nevada.
As far as naming goes, Silicon Valley sucks. Silicon Valley is too small to be a viable state economically. A state needs some diversity in it. A coastal chunk from Monterrey Bay north up to and including Napa would be more realistic but that is not Silicon Valley.
But, hey, Tim Draper has way more money than I do and California has a history of letting those with lots of money float silly ideas.
I tend to think that the comments on electoral statistics have this right. It is an attempt to tilt the Senate and Electoral College.
I live on the east coast, and much of my food is still from California farms.