I would think the question is the other way around.
It's a step (possibly a small one) to diluting the DEM monolith that his California.
Today CA can be depended to field a DEM slate of senators, and send DEM electors to the electoral college [1]. If broken up, then some of the new senators would presumably go GOP, as would some of the electoral votes.
It would be fascinating to see the outcome of such a plan. The results would be interesting from poli sci, economics, and sociology perspectives.
[1] Is CA an all-or-nothing state, or is it proportional? I don't recall.
Playing the long game, if the split was right, yep they would because then California could not pull some of the stunts it has in the past[1]. Textbook companies are another area that would change because of split CA.
Tell them it will make it so the liberal hippies they currently share a state with will end up in another state and they'll be free to oppress any group they feel like.
Take the two top states (purple & blue) and make them vertical (one coastal, one inland) as opposed to horizontal. That would probably be enough to tip the scales.
I do think it might be a problem for Democrats in the first place because CA would no longer be an electoral fortress. Much like the plan to split NYC and surrounding counties from NY state.
I am more interested in water policy once a split occurs. I would imagine some desalination plants would finally be built.
Hm, Wikipedia says "California has also begun producing a small amount of desalinated water, water that was once sea water, but has been purified." That may need a "citation needed", at least - at a skim I'm not seeing support for it.
Hum, maybe they meant some testing devices, I guess that would be "small amount". Cannot imagine you'd build a whole plant without some miniature tests.
It's for a more strong separation between rich and poor California. This plan would create the nation's poorest state by per capita income (Central California), and I think Jefferson would also be in the bottom 10.
Actually, you think Central CA would be the poorest, although that's assuming policy remains unchanged. Imagine a conservative state within 1+ hr drive of the bay area, that could eliminate personal income tax attracting workers from Silicon Valley, affordable housing, better weather, water control (delta), and agriculture.
Yes, I do, because I'm from New England so I don't have to imagine those things. I've lived in New Hampshire: a conservative state within an hour drive of Boston with no personal income tax and housing that's way more affordable than Boston. These factors don't magically make it more affluent than Boston.
Not a joke, but probably very unlikely. There was recently a motion to split Colorado into 2 states with very strong support internally, and it went nowhere.
Except you know... they won't be the same state anymore. It won't be too many years before they act like six competing states because of competing interests.
By staying one state, California has the benefit of being one of the most powerful economies on the planet which, even without having things pass at the federal government, allows significant world power.
California's car efficiency standards over the years for instance basically forced every car company that sells a car in the US to up their efficiency. There is no chance that would happen if it was just 1/6th of California.
That discussion includes some breakdowns of possible voting numbers (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6957513). I don't think it would be a slam dunk for Republican senators but it would be a lot more likely. (dragonwriter's followup to my numbers analysis is important and accurate.)
Stacking small states until you have CA's population, you have enough senators to sustain a filibuster. We have 2. This is both undemocratic and unreasonable.
That's the way the system was designed, yes, and I'm not failing to understand that. That doesn't change the fact that it is undemocratic, and if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration. More is not always better, but at extremes it's a concern. I'm not saying we should turn the Senate into a purely democratic body. I'm saying that when we consider how we draw our state lines "how democratic it makes the Senate" is one relevant factor. As I said, it is also unreasonable.
"if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration"
I don't think we've ever valued democracy for its own sake. The founders were much more focused on the States and checks and balances. Democracy had to fit into that framework.
[Edit] the proper rights of a British subject became the proper rights of an American citizen and should affect the House directly.
"The founders were much more focused on the States and checks and balances."
First, quite obviously, the borders of California were no part of that deliberation.
Second, the focuses of the founders don't have to be our own. They had legitimate concerns, of which we should also not lose sight, but that doesn't mean democracy is an illegitimate concern.
I think we ought to go back to listening to the concerns on the proper balance between the people, states, and federal government. We have done a poor job of it in the 1900's and 2000's.
The undemocratic part was considered a feature, not a bug.
As to unreasonable: It's a rare issue that unites the smaller states. From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart. So I am not persuaded by arguments that assume there is a threat of a small-state Senate alliance against the overwhelming wishes of the rest of the country.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that overuse of the filibuster has put an inordinate amount of legislative power in the hands of the Senate majority leader and a dozen middle-of-the-road Senators, I agree. But the solution to that problem is to fix the filibuster, not destroy the Constitutional balance between states and the Federal government.
Undemocratic is a feature and a bug. It shifts over firmly into "bug" territory when it gets too extreme.
"From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart."
Vermont and Wyoming are strongly united on a number of issues (guns immediately springs to mind). I'm not the least bit sure that Central California and Silicon Valley would be united on fewer. The notion that Vermont and New Hampshire should be separate; Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhodes Island should be separate; Maryland and Virginia should be separate; but Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all belong in the same state is laughable.
"But the solution to that problem is to fix the filibuster, not destroy the Constitutional balance between states and the Federal government."
Right, because when they wrote the Constitution, Jefferson and Madison and friends carefully laid out California's borders.
When California entered the Union, its population was less than 1% of the total US population. Now it's well more than 10%. The borders that made sense when it was a state like Wyoming don't make sense anymore. It has population like the eastern seaboard, it has industry like the eastern seaboard, it should have borders more like the eastern seaboard.
The problem with the United States is that there are too many states rather than not enough of them. The states are too small and weak to solve their own problems (e.g, health care, high speed rail) so they have to rely on a dysfunctional federal government that can't solve
any real problems these days (e.g., education, immigration, and of course health care).
Those managing the Delaware toll booths on I-95 seem to agree with you.
However, many eastern states can be traversed in on common travel routes in about that time. In clear traffic, you can do the Maryland stretch of I-95 in about two hours. Connecticut and Rhode Island are not particularly large.
I actually think that a lot of good could come from splitting up California. This would allow the intense stupidity of its politics to be less monolithic, and would permit more experimentation with policy, which might have a good outcome.
That said, as a former San Luis Obispan, the notion of being an adjunct of Los Angeles (see http://www.sixcalifornias.info/) makes me shudder. And having Los Angeles and Orange County in separate states makes no sense. If you were going to carve up California along lines of economic and cultural interest, then I'd adjust the Six Californias as follows:
Jefferson (blue, in the far north) -- looks about right (and has a great history, worth reading about).
Northern California -- I'd swap Alpine, Mono, and Inyo counties into this state (from Central Valley), as this creates a state which is dominated by wilderness, tourism, and natural resources.
Central Valley (red) -- I'd take San Benito from Silicon Valley, to create a state which is unified by agriculture.
Silicon Valley (yellow) -- I'd shift San Benito to Central Valley and Monterrey to Central Coast (green), creating a more technology-centric state.
Central Coast (green) -- take Monterrey, but send Ventura and Los Angeles to Southern California. This is a rural area dominated by nature and tourism, and shouldn't be swallowed by Los Angeles politics.
Southern California (orange) -- take Ventura and Los Angeles from Central Coast, so as not to split up the overall conurbation.
Chances of this (or any version thereof) actually happening? Nil -- but it's kind of fun to think about.
these proposals pop up every season - interesting that it looks like it could be reasonably balanced (from a senate perspective - central, west, and another could vote more 'red'), that means Democrats would lose a part of the gigantic electoral votes CA brings. All in all, probably not going to happen.
I guess central CA would get to keep the bear on their flag. West CA could use a Range Rover as their symbol. South CA might use the Joshua Tree. Silicon Valley would have the iFlag...
Bay Area and LA Area pay the bulk of the taxes in the state - there is a net transfer of money from the rich counties on the coast to the poorer ones in the north and east, in short, it would take counties that get many services paid for and supplied by the state as a whole, to a level that could possibly resemble a third world country.
California is unmanageable - but its because via the initiative process the voters have boxed everything into a corner.
53 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] threadIt's a step (possibly a small one) to diluting the DEM monolith that his California.
Today CA can be depended to field a DEM slate of senators, and send DEM electors to the electoral college [1]. If broken up, then some of the new senators would presumably go GOP, as would some of the electoral votes.
It would be fascinating to see the outcome of such a plan. The results would be interesting from poli sci, economics, and sociology perspectives.
[1] Is CA an all-or-nothing state, or is it proportional? I don't recall.
1) latest one http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/04/4798111/missouris-koste...
I'd venture a guess that 2 maybe 3 (if also looking at the numbers for the house elections) of the 6 new states may go republican.
I do think it might be a problem for Democrats in the first place because CA would no longer be an electoral fortress. Much like the plan to split NYC and surrounding counties from NY state.
I am more interested in water policy once a split occurs. I would imagine some desalination plants would finally be built.
I agree, although there are some desalinization plants already.
edit: It seems they target to have a better ratio senators/californians and to get rid of the debt.
details: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/tim-draper-six-californias-...
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/02/05/rich-stat... http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm (per capita income list as of 2012)
I ain't buying new flags...
By staying one state, California has the benefit of being one of the most powerful economies on the planet which, even without having things pass at the federal government, allows significant world power.
California's car efficiency standards over the years for instance basically forced every car company that sells a car in the US to up their efficiency. There is no chance that would happen if it was just 1/6th of California.
That discussion includes some breakdowns of possible voting numbers (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6957513). I don't think it would be a slam dunk for Republican senators but it would be a lot more likely. (dragonwriter's followup to my numbers analysis is important and accurate.)
I don't think we've ever valued democracy for its own sake. The founders were much more focused on the States and checks and balances. Democracy had to fit into that framework.
[Edit] the proper rights of a British subject became the proper rights of an American citizen and should affect the House directly.
First, quite obviously, the borders of California were no part of that deliberation.
Second, the focuses of the founders don't have to be our own. They had legitimate concerns, of which we should also not lose sight, but that doesn't mean democracy is an illegitimate concern.
As to unreasonable: It's a rare issue that unites the smaller states. From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart. So I am not persuaded by arguments that assume there is a threat of a small-state Senate alliance against the overwhelming wishes of the rest of the country.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that overuse of the filibuster has put an inordinate amount of legislative power in the hands of the Senate majority leader and a dozen middle-of-the-road Senators, I agree. But the solution to that problem is to fix the filibuster, not destroy the Constitutional balance between states and the Federal government.
"From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart."
Vermont and Wyoming are strongly united on a number of issues (guns immediately springs to mind). I'm not the least bit sure that Central California and Silicon Valley would be united on fewer. The notion that Vermont and New Hampshire should be separate; Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhodes Island should be separate; Maryland and Virginia should be separate; but Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all belong in the same state is laughable.
"But the solution to that problem is to fix the filibuster, not destroy the Constitutional balance between states and the Federal government."
Right, because when they wrote the Constitution, Jefferson and Madison and friends carefully laid out California's borders.
When California entered the Union, its population was less than 1% of the total US population. Now it's well more than 10%. The borders that made sense when it was a state like Wyoming don't make sense anymore. It has population like the eastern seaboard, it has industry like the eastern seaboard, it should have borders more like the eastern seaboard.
However, many eastern states can be traversed in on common travel routes in about that time. In clear traffic, you can do the Maryland stretch of I-95 in about two hours. Connecticut and Rhode Island are not particularly large.
I would take this news article a bit more seriously if they had spelled "states" correctly in the first sentence...
That said, as a former San Luis Obispan, the notion of being an adjunct of Los Angeles (see http://www.sixcalifornias.info/) makes me shudder. And having Los Angeles and Orange County in separate states makes no sense. If you were going to carve up California along lines of economic and cultural interest, then I'd adjust the Six Californias as follows:
Jefferson (blue, in the far north) -- looks about right (and has a great history, worth reading about).
Northern California -- I'd swap Alpine, Mono, and Inyo counties into this state (from Central Valley), as this creates a state which is dominated by wilderness, tourism, and natural resources.
Central Valley (red) -- I'd take San Benito from Silicon Valley, to create a state which is unified by agriculture.
Silicon Valley (yellow) -- I'd shift San Benito to Central Valley and Monterrey to Central Coast (green), creating a more technology-centric state.
Central Coast (green) -- take Monterrey, but send Ventura and Los Angeles to Southern California. This is a rural area dominated by nature and tourism, and shouldn't be swallowed by Los Angeles politics.
Southern California (orange) -- take Ventura and Los Angeles from Central Coast, so as not to split up the overall conurbation.
Chances of this (or any version thereof) actually happening? Nil -- but it's kind of fun to think about.
Bay Area and LA Area pay the bulk of the taxes in the state - there is a net transfer of money from the rich counties on the coast to the poorer ones in the north and east, in short, it would take counties that get many services paid for and supplied by the state as a whole, to a level that could possibly resemble a third world country.
California is unmanageable - but its because via the initiative process the voters have boxed everything into a corner.