Which is exactly why it will never happen. Those over-represented tiny states will oppose it by every means, fair or foul, and there's simply no way that anyone else will find the change desirable enough to join the fight on California's side.
> Those over-represented tiny red states will oppose it by every means
I'm not sure why they would oppose replacing one giant Democratic-majority state with 6 states that aren't mostly Democratic-majority -- it improves the Republican structural position in the Senate and Presidential elections.
There might be a temptation for tiny red states to support the move as a way to improve the Republican position, but...
(a) Such an advantage might be transitory. Who's to say those new states will remain red, especially when they're submitted to a new level of political targeting that they never were when the state outcome was dominated by urban blue-ness? Even those tiny-state folks can recognize a two edged sword for what it is.
(b) There are small blue states too.
(c) Both effects are likely to be outweighed by issues that have nothing to do with red vs. blue. The over-represented states want to stay that way, no matter which parties are involved.
Well, yeah. Some of us still remember that California was a Republican solid state in national politics not too long ago.
> Who's to say those new states will remain red, especially when they're submitted to a new level of political targeting that the state outcome was dominated by urban blue-ness?
I can't understand what the "especially..." part of this is trying to communicate. It sounds like there is an interesting thought behind it, but I can't penetrate the way it is phrased to get to the meaning.
> There are small blue states too.
And big states, blue and red, that have powerful interests that like them being big (as well as powerful interests that don't, too be sure) which will seek to avoid balkanization getting established as a thing.
> Both effects are likely to be outweighed by issues that have nothing to do with red vs. blue. The over-represented states want to stay that way, no matter which parties are involved.
I think that claiming that this will be the dominant effect understates the degree to which national politics in the US is driven by tribal partisanship, but certainly partisanship wouldn't be the only factor influencing it.
It would be fair to split California into 2 and then each half would get 1 senator. Otherwise you might try to play the population card, but other states would need to approve (or could veto) the process.
> It would be fair to split California into 2 and then each half would get 1 senator.
Er, even split into 6 states with two senators, California would be underrepresented compared to many other states.
Plus, the one thing that the Constitution expressly prohibits doing even by Constitutional amendment is changing the distribution of Senators to something where states would not have equal representation. (You can take away all the power of the Senate by Constitutional amendment, but you can't stop it from representing the states equally.)
Create more influence points for business to target, and make it more geographically convenient to play them against each other.
Also, increase the proportion of Republican-majority states, which helps tip the balance of the federal government further to the Right by increasing the structural advantage for Republicans in the Senate and in Presidential elections.
I completely agree that California should be broken in to n states, where 2 <= n <= 8.
However, I, and I suspect most people, would draw the lines differently.
In fact, I think most people will agree with the concept of breaking CA into multiple states, but at the same time I think most Californians would rather stay as one state than create new states with boundaries that annoy them.
California is a beautiful state and I never want to see it broken up. Joshua Trees, Lake Tahoe, the coast of Mendocino, in fact all of Highway 1, Alpine, Torrey Pines, Russia River, the rocky hills of North County San Diego, Red Woods and Big Sur, San Francisco, Balboa Park, White Sands, Death Valley, and on and on. The many missions. The many universities.
Between Hollywood and Silicon Valley, California touches more minds and hearts than any other place in the world.
This state is amazing, so diverse and rich in culture. This six state initiative is such an embarrassment. People that advocate something like this are so out of touch with reality. The New York Times brought this up when they were referring to the weird rich kids that live in the bay area. I'd support California becoming it's own sovereign state before I'd support breaking it up.
That's all this is, a thinly veiled attempt at keeping tax revenues in the Valley. And the plan is totally impractical given how the state manages its water supply; questions of water supply will keep the state united (unless the northern parts were to dry up in coming decades).
The only real benefit I see with the plan is forcing some of the water issues. It would be nice to see some desalination plants pop up to handle the costal city water so the agriculture can be preserved.
I'm not sure how that couldn't be an argument to break up all the large states. It would just turn the senate into another house of representatives.
And it's a weird way to fix the senate if you wanted it to be fixed. You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all. You could ask for more senators. And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas. All of these solutions are about as likely to pass: nil chance. And I'll fight tooth and nail to keep help keep this state together.
>I'm not sure how that couldn't be an argument to break up all the large states
It might be worth considering some kind of population density clause for when the number of constituents to representatives reaches a ridiculous value.
>You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all.
This kind of a fix isn't pragmatic and will have a bigger disruption than breaking up one state. It's not like the geography is going to change because the lines are redrawn.
>And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas.
Have you considered whether other residents of the state share your view? Maybe the larger metropolitan areas are alright keeping around the sparser rural areas, but not the inverse?
Breaking up the state might provide more representation on the federal level. I disagree that it would be better. Also, I don't know if anyone has considered this but, nothing is stopping California from creating six separate localities with their own "governors" and laws under the California umbrella (sort of like mini states within the state).
Adopting a sane electoral system (i.e., not FPTP in single-member districts) will do that. Breaking the state up will not in any significant way do that.
Maybe locally—but nationally, it will reduce California’s voice to an infinitesimal one.
I have a hunch that this is something that Koch allies and the RNC would love to see, as it would mean that a fairly-reliable blue state (with a lot of EVs) would become two smaller blue states and four red states.
This makes even less sense than Prop 13, and will have a substantially worse effect.
Doesn't the US system over-represent smaller states? Seems like Californians would have more representatives in DC with these changes.
On the second electoral-vote point, it sounds like the proposal would result in more proportional representation of Californians' political opinion which is surely a good thing.
There would be six times as many senators, but presumably the number of representatives wouldn't change that much.
The question might be "a good thing" for whom? American devotion to more proportional representation is and always has been somewhat qualified: the "gerry" in "gerrymander" remembers a signer of the Declaration of Independence...
Yes. We must preserve diversity... by crushing it under a single government. Power to the people... the people in Sacramento, am I right?
Keep on trying to control the frame ("weird rich kids", "embarrassment", "hearts and minds"). We've reached peak centralization. The future is decentralization, subsidiary, and localized control.
Everyone already has a lot of localized control. That's how America, and most individualized states, are set up. I assume by control you mean representation. Are you arguing that the representation within the state isn't good enough? If so there are other avenues to fix that problem, such as changing the state legislature where most of the laws that affect the day to day lives of Californians come from, to be more representative. I can't see how creating five new states solves any control or representation problem.
I'm not sure you actually made a cogent argument I can respond to. The future is whatever we make it to be, and I don't like your vision of the future, and you aren't very good at convincing me to see the merits of what you want. What you want seems to be standard troglodyte big government is bad. This state has its many issues, but it also has many pluses and ruining its identity so you can build your libertarian dream state has already been tried in New Hampshire. It didn't work out.
Do you think it impossible for such a change to result in the same regional California but more functional government?
I've been places where township governments were basically just an extra layer underneath the county (providing little more than redundant obstruction). I can imagine voices in these townships reaching for similar arguments about how beautiful the township is and how change is bad.
I hope this doesn't pass because I know how the lines will be drawn. The rich, privileged will be grouped together and will take advantage of the poor.
Well, there is probably a greater cultural gap between San Francisco and Los Angeles than exists between Fargo and Little Rock. And I do have a preference for smaller and more responsive polities.
But with my foil hat on, I realize that this is a play by non-Californians to manipulate national politics at the expense of the states. I'll only support it if they do California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New York at the same time.
How else could you do it? Tax only the people in favor of infrastructure improvements and prevent everyone else from using them? Only arrest people using recreational drugs if they voted against legalization?
Geography has everything to do with government. Where you are geographically determines how you are governed and who governs you.
psuter said, "I find the idea that political and cultural boundaries should align to be a very sad and unimaginative one." Which I took to mean that psuter believes realigning CA along cultural or political boundaries (like saying, "republicans over here, democrats over there") is very sad and unimaginative.
To which you responded "How else could you do it? Tax only the people in favor of infrastructure improvements and prevent everyone else from using them? Only arrest people using recreational drugs if they voted against legalization?"
Which is why I tried to answer your question "How else could you do it?" by pointing out another way it can be done is, you keep things the way they are now meaning, you arrest, tax, and govern everyone equally depending on where they are standing (some things being illegal in some jurisdictions and not in others).
It seems like there's some sort of breakdown in understanding between the two of us here.
I'm looking to adverbialize a gerund. Gerrymanderingly? Gerrymandrically? Gerrymanderibly?
How it's done now is by politicians counting votes and setting the boundaries for their own benefit. This would be another--more permanent--opportunity for them to do that.
That's really well put. I hadn't thought of it in that way. It seems pretty funny someone would say "What's that? We can't just redraw the districts to get what we want? Fine, let's redraw entire states."
I agree entirely. I like the fact that as a nation and even in most localities there are people with diverse views, backgrounds, etc. and we all have to figure out how to make this whole living together thing work (or move).
I don't think there's an example of a place that attempted to align in such a way and magically it worked. Even within places where people agree broadly about the role of government, etc. Such as NYC. There are always the same disagreements about how we run the way we live, such as the NYC mayoral primary that happened in 2013.
Ethnic makeup and degree of local homogeniety. Urban density. Use of public transportation. Historical points of interest. Dominant industries. Automobile culture. Access to green space. Consumer habits. Weather patterns. Air quality. Even the color of the surrounding landscape is different. Is it not clear to you that they just "feel" like completely different places, and that different kinds of people live there?
It is not clear to me that the difference between Downtown SF and Downtown LA is bigger than, say, Downtown SF and Hunter's Point.
I mean, take someone from SF and have them live in Stockton for a month, and Fresno for a month, and LA for a month, and see which cultural divide is greatest.
I find it really odd that anyone would actually think something like this would work. Firstly, California would have to agree to break itself into 6 states. Even if that happened, those six states, which as far as America is concerned are still all part of California, would then need to convince Congress (which are the representatives of the rest of the country with a disproportionate representation of tiny states) to allow them to join the Union. Asking Congress to let 5 extra states join the Union is pretty much asking every state if it's cool that California gets 10 new Senators and 5 new Congressman. It seems odd that anyone would think Congress would be okay with that, especially when it doesn't seem to benefit the country at all.
I also think it's funny that they've hired a PR firm[1] that handles "luxury hotels and resorts"[2], and "Luxury Real Estate Developments and Private Residence Clubs"[2] to contact for information. I can't think of any successful, attempting to be grassroots movement, created to try to improve the lives of others, that hired a PR firm from the start.
I grew up in Washington state and there were periodic calls to divide it vertically down the middle so that those in the (less populous) eastern (largely Republican) half of the state could be more independent of the (more populous, largely Democrat) western half of the state. The kicker was the proposed name for the new state: Lincoln.
Yeah, that's one area where this would be the opposite of local control, as it would essentially federalize the California water issues that aren't already federal (since interstate compacts must be approved by Congress.)
I could see (but not really support) a reasonable argument for making a North California & South California. It is a pretty big land mass with a large population. But I think 6 is overkill.
58 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadI'm not sure why they would oppose replacing one giant Democratic-majority state with 6 states that aren't mostly Democratic-majority -- it improves the Republican structural position in the Senate and Presidential elections.
(a) Such an advantage might be transitory. Who's to say those new states will remain red, especially when they're submitted to a new level of political targeting that they never were when the state outcome was dominated by urban blue-ness? Even those tiny-state folks can recognize a two edged sword for what it is.
(b) There are small blue states too.
(c) Both effects are likely to be outweighed by issues that have nothing to do with red vs. blue. The over-represented states want to stay that way, no matter which parties are involved.
Also, don't downvote just because you disagree.
Well, yeah. Some of us still remember that California was a Republican solid state in national politics not too long ago.
> Who's to say those new states will remain red, especially when they're submitted to a new level of political targeting that the state outcome was dominated by urban blue-ness?
I can't understand what the "especially..." part of this is trying to communicate. It sounds like there is an interesting thought behind it, but I can't penetrate the way it is phrased to get to the meaning.
> There are small blue states too.
And big states, blue and red, that have powerful interests that like them being big (as well as powerful interests that don't, too be sure) which will seek to avoid balkanization getting established as a thing.
> Both effects are likely to be outweighed by issues that have nothing to do with red vs. blue. The over-represented states want to stay that way, no matter which parties are involved.
I think that claiming that this will be the dominant effect understates the degree to which national politics in the US is driven by tribal partisanship, but certainly partisanship wouldn't be the only factor influencing it.
It would be fair to split California into 2 and then each half would get 1 senator. Otherwise you might try to play the population card, but other states would need to approve (or could veto) the process.
Er, even split into 6 states with two senators, California would be underrepresented compared to many other states.
Plus, the one thing that the Constitution expressly prohibits doing even by Constitutional amendment is changing the distribution of Senators to something where states would not have equal representation. (You can take away all the power of the Senate by Constitutional amendment, but you can't stop it from representing the states equally.)
At least, that's what would likely happen if this ever passed. Which it probably won't.
Create more influence points for business to target, and make it more geographically convenient to play them against each other.
Also, increase the proportion of Republican-majority states, which helps tip the balance of the federal government further to the Right by increasing the structural advantage for Republicans in the Senate and in Presidential elections.
However, I, and I suspect most people, would draw the lines differently.
In fact, I think most people will agree with the concept of breaking CA into multiple states, but at the same time I think most Californians would rather stay as one state than create new states with boundaries that annoy them.
Between Hollywood and Silicon Valley, California touches more minds and hearts than any other place in the world.
This state is amazing, so diverse and rich in culture. This six state initiative is such an embarrassment. People that advocate something like this are so out of touch with reality. The New York Times brought this up when they were referring to the weird rich kids that live in the bay area. I'd support California becoming it's own sovereign state before I'd support breaking it up.
And it's a weird way to fix the senate if you wanted it to be fixed. You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all. You could ask for more senators. And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas. All of these solutions are about as likely to pass: nil chance. And I'll fight tooth and nail to keep help keep this state together.
It might be worth considering some kind of population density clause for when the number of constituents to representatives reaches a ridiculous value.
>You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all.
This kind of a fix isn't pragmatic and will have a bigger disruption than breaking up one state. It's not like the geography is going to change because the lines are redrawn.
>And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas.
Have you considered whether other residents of the state share your view? Maybe the larger metropolitan areas are alright keeping around the sparser rural areas, but not the inverse?
I have a hunch that this is something that Koch allies and the RNC would love to see, as it would mean that a fairly-reliable blue state (with a lot of EVs) would become two smaller blue states and four red states.
This makes even less sense than Prop 13, and will have a substantially worse effect.
Doesn't the US system over-represent smaller states? Seems like Californians would have more representatives in DC with these changes.
On the second electoral-vote point, it sounds like the proposal would result in more proportional representation of Californians' political opinion which is surely a good thing.
The question might be "a good thing" for whom? American devotion to more proportional representation is and always has been somewhat qualified: the "gerry" in "gerrymander" remembers a signer of the Declaration of Independence...
Well, I didn't believe such a thing existed. :)
Keep on trying to control the frame ("weird rich kids", "embarrassment", "hearts and minds"). We've reached peak centralization. The future is decentralization, subsidiary, and localized control.
I've been places where township governments were basically just an extra layer underneath the county (providing little more than redundant obstruction). I can imagine voices in these townships reaching for similar arguments about how beautiful the township is and how change is bad.
I hope this doesn't pass because I know how the lines will be drawn. The rich, privileged will be grouped together and will take advantage of the poor.
But with my foil hat on, I realize that this is a play by non-Californians to manipulate national politics at the expense of the states. I'll only support it if they do California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New York at the same time.
(Not suggesting you hold an opposite view.)
psuter said, "I find the idea that political and cultural boundaries should align to be a very sad and unimaginative one." Which I took to mean that psuter believes realigning CA along cultural or political boundaries (like saying, "republicans over here, democrats over there") is very sad and unimaginative.
To which you responded "How else could you do it? Tax only the people in favor of infrastructure improvements and prevent everyone else from using them? Only arrest people using recreational drugs if they voted against legalization?"
Which is why I tried to answer your question "How else could you do it?" by pointing out another way it can be done is, you keep things the way they are now meaning, you arrest, tax, and govern everyone equally depending on where they are standing (some things being illegal in some jurisdictions and not in others).
It seems like there's some sort of breakdown in understanding between the two of us here.
How it's done now is by politicians counting votes and setting the boundaries for their own benefit. This would be another--more permanent--opportunity for them to do that.
I don't think there's an example of a place that attempted to align in such a way and magically it worked. Even within places where people agree broadly about the role of government, etc. Such as NYC. There are always the same disagreements about how we run the way we live, such as the NYC mayoral primary that happened in 2013.
I'm curious as to what you think this gap is.
I mean, take someone from SF and have them live in Stockton for a month, and Fresno for a month, and LA for a month, and see which cultural divide is greatest.
I also think it's funny that they've hired a PR firm[1] that handles "luxury hotels and resorts"[2], and "Luxury Real Estate Developments and Private Residence Clubs"[2] to contact for information. I can't think of any successful, attempting to be grassroots movement, created to try to improve the lives of others, that hired a PR firm from the start.
[1] - The for press inquiries link at the bottom of their landing page [2] - The PR company's clients section http://www.seahorsepr.com/clients/clients.htm