Six Californias

[cabiness42]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014...ts-green-light/

 

A venture capitalist who feels colossal California is too unwieldy to govern is proposing to split it into six separate states, and Secretary of State Debra Bowen has given him the green light to start collecting petition signatures.

 

Tim Draper filed a ballot initiative in December stating that because of recent social and economic changes California has become “nearly ungovernable.”

 

He proposed dividing California into six states. San Diego and Orange County would make up “South California.” “West California” would include Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, while Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton would make up the larger “Central California.” San Francisco and San Jose would be in the new “Silicon Valley.” “North California” would include the Sacramento area, and “Jefferson” would be home to the Redding and Eureka areas.

 

Of course, any changing of state boundaries requires Congressional approval, along with the affected state(s). Splitting California into six parts would add 10 Senate seats (and thus 10 electoral votes). I haven't drilled down to the voting patterns of each of the six areas, but I assume that at the very least South California would be heavily Republican and perhaps one or two of the others may lean Republican as well. I can't see the Democrats in Congress agreeing to anything that would tilt the Electoral College in the Republicans favor, so this seems like a pointless exercise to me no matter how much sense it might make. Not trying to bash Democrats here, as of course the Republicans would do the exact same thing if the roles were reversed.

[Jake]

Seems like the state is only not governable if you're a Republican like the petitioner

[cabiness42]

Seems like the state is only not governable if you're a Republican like the petitioner

 

I don't disagree that California is a mess and that it is partly because of its size, but any plan to split it is going to fail due to partisan reasons from one side or the other.

 

But yes, this particular petition has tried to make the new borders as Republican-friendly as possible.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014...ts-green-light/

 

 

 

Of course, any changing of state boundaries requires Congressional approval, along with the affected state(s). Splitting California into six parts would add 10 Senate seats (and thus 10 electoral votes). I haven't drilled down to the voting patterns of each of the six areas, but I assume that at the very least South California would be heavily Republican and perhaps one or two of the others may lean Republican as well. I can't see the Democrats in Congress agreeing to anything that would tilt the Electoral College in the Republicans favor, so this seems like a pointless exercise to me no matter how much sense it might make. Not trying to bash Democrats here, as of course the Republicans would do the exact same thing if the roles were reversed.

 

Theres a recent proposal going on in NY as well. Basically splits off Manhattan Island, Long Island, Staten Island and 3 or 4 counties just outside of NYC into one district and the rest of upstate NY into a second.

 

To avoid the requirement of congressional approval, they would not technically be separate states, but separate "districts" within the state. Basically, they would share the existing senators but operate as two separate entities.

[southsider2k5]

Theres a recent proposal going on in NY as well. Basically splits off Manhattan Island, Long Island, Staten Island and 3 or 4 counties just outside of NYC into one district and the rest of upstate NY into a second.

 

To avoid the requirement of congressional approval, they would not technically be separate states, but separate "districts" within the state. Basically, they would share the existing senators but operate as two separate entities.

 

Colorado has had the same thing going on.

 

Honestly I am surprised this hasn't happened in IL yet.

[cabiness42]

Theres a recent proposal going on in NY as well. Basically splits off Manhattan Island, Long Island, Staten Island and 3 or 4 counties just outside of NYC into one district and the rest of upstate NY into a second.

 

To avoid the requirement of congressional approval, they would not technically be separate states, but separate "districts" within the state. Basically, they would share the existing senators but operate as two separate entities.

 

So New York would technically be one state, with the entire state voting for 2 US Senators and giving its electoral votes to one Presidential candidate, but aside from that each part would have its own government, complete with a governor, legislature, and tax laws?

 

Very interesting concept.

 

I wonder if that could work judicially, because lawsuits are filed by/against states and not parts of states.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

So New York would technically be one state, with the entire state voting for 2 US Senators and giving its electoral votes to one Presidential candidate, but aside from that each part would have its own government, complete with a governor, legislature, and tax laws?

 

Very interesting concept.

 

I wonder if that could work judicially, because lawsuits are filed by/against states and not parts of states.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/f...s-for-big-appl/

[StrangeSox]

These proposals have always been around, but they're never going to go anywhere.

[Texsox]

Texas was brought into the union with the possibility of splitting into four states, but that was more of a response to slavery issues than anything else. Didn't Arizona start a petition to split into two states last year?

 

While all this is theoritical, what is fact is that this is the longest the US has gone without adding a state. While I consider any of the splitting possibilities far fetched, I do see a 51st state within the next ten year. Probably Washington DC but possibly Puerto Rico.

[witesoxfan]

Hey it actually worked with Dakota and Carolina!

[Balta1701]

Texas was brought into the union with the possibility of splitting into four states, but that was more of a response to slavery issues than anything else. Didn't Arizona start a petition to split into two states last year?

 

While all this is theoritical, what is fact is that this is the longest the US has gone without adding a state. While I consider any of the splitting possibilities far fetched, I do see a 51st state within the next ten year. Probably Washington DC but possibly Puerto Rico.

The problem with all this is that there's no legitimate non-partisan way to do it. If you add DC you're giving the Democrats 2 senators so you need to add 2 Republican senators somewhere, but if you try to break Republican counties away from a state, the state government isn't likely to like that. Puerto Rico isn't an option because it's not exactly an obviously-Republican demographic.

 

The counties that want to leave Colorado, for example, are trying to keep oil money, and Colorado's not dumb enough to allow that. The California plan is written in the same way, to give the Republicans a big boost in the Senate and gerrymander the Democrats into more political weakness, and California's not going to go along with that.

[Texsox]

I agree with the political realities of the situation. Much like states were brought in based on slave versus free.

 

However, we are also adding federal representation to US citizens who currently do not have any.

[Chisoxfn]

Seems like the state is only not governable if you're a Republican like the petitioner

Its a f***ing disaster. 6th largest economy in the world and its ruined by moronic legislation and incompetent boobs who run the state and my vote will never matter cause its so far blue it isn't even funny. Last time the state was decently ran was under a republican and its been a long time since that happened and no, i'm not counting the governator. We will continue to hand out fat pensions and spend beyond our means and then keep asking the people of the state to pay more in taxes for benefits private sector employees could only dream of, why, because those sort of benefits are not sustainable and not necessary (especially when you also pay far more then the private sector).

[StrangeSox]

The state seems to be running much better since democrats got supermajority control and things could actually pass. The supermajority rules in California made it very difficult to govern without that sort of majority.

[southsider2k5]

Texas was brought into the union with the possibility of splitting into four states, but that was more of a response to slavery issues than anything else. Didn't Arizona start a petition to split into two states last year?

 

While all this is theoritical, what is fact is that this is the longest the US has gone without adding a state. While I consider any of the splitting possibilities far fetched, I do see a 51st state within the next ten year. Probably Washington DC but possibly Puerto Rico.

 

 

Did you fall asleep in Texas history class? It was five, not four.

[southsider2k5]

Hey it actually worked with Dakota and Carolina!

 

Not so much with Virgina...

[NorthSideSox72]

Texas was brought into the union with the possibility of splitting into four states, but that was more of a response to slavery issues than anything else. Didn't Arizona start a petition to split into two states last year?

Funny note on Arizona... it only exists as a state because of slavery. As part of various machinations before and during the civil war, the New Mexico territory was split in two (more or less). Arizona was aligned with the Confederates and allowed slavery, New Mexico was Union and did not. The sarcastic part of me looks at that today, with Arizona being so much more fiercely socially conservative than New Mexico, and you wonder if it is just in-born.

 

[StrangeSox]

same with West Virginia

[Texsox]

Funny note on Arizona... it only exists as a state because of slavery. As part of various machinations before and during the civil war, the New Mexico territory was split in two (more or less). Arizona was aligned with the Confederates and allowed slavery, New Mexico was Union and did not. The sarcastic part of me looks at that today, with Arizona being so much more fiercely socially conservative than New Mexico, and you wonder if it is just in-born.

 

Your point is interesting. I would like to add that it is only parts of Arizona, which is why people explored splitting the state.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Colorado has had the same thing going on.

 

Honestly I am surprised this hasn't happened in IL yet.

Because when push comes to shove, down state will realize that northern Illinois subsidizes a lot of their infrastructure.

[EvilMonkey]

Funny note on Arizona... it only exists as a state because of slavery. As part of various machinations before and during the civil war, the New Mexico territory was split in two (more or less). Arizona was aligned with the Confederates and allowed slavery, New Mexico was Union and did not. The sarcastic part of me looks at that today, with Arizona being so much more fiercely socially conservative than New Mexico, and you wonder if it is just in-born.

Did you just equate conservatism as being pro-slavery?

[Jenksismyhero]

Because when push comes to shove, down state will realize that northern Illinois subsidizes a lot of their infrastructure.

 

I would bet that Chicagoland receives far more money from the rest of the state than the rest of the state receives money from Chicagoland.

[NorthSideSox72]

Did you just equate conservatism as being pro-slavery?

No, I equated traditional social conservatism with modern social conservatism. Marriage equality isn't really the same as slavery, two very different issues IMO. The parallelism isn't direct, it is more a general, historical tendency of a given state towards conservative leanings (versus liberal). And of course, that is also not the same as party identification either.

 

Come on now, you think I was really making that sort of direct comparison? Look at the history of AZ and NM, and you will see how springing from different roots (part of which stems from Union vs Confederate ties) has carried tendencies with it. The history of both states is of course much more complex than that, I was painting in broad strokes to illustrate themes.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I would bet that Chicagoland receives far more money from the rest of the state than the rest of the state receives money from Chicagoland.

What makes you think that? I'd say AHB is right on this one. If you look at tax revenue to the state from the Chicago metro versus everywhere else, then look at state spending per capita in each area, I'd think you would see the flow going out of Chicago, not into it.

 

Though of course, state spending/taxation isn't the only cash flow factor at play. The very presence of populations in Chicago contributes to revenues for other parts of the state much more so than the other way around.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

What makes you think that? I'd say AHB is right on this one. If you look at tax revenue to the state from the Chicago metro versus everywhere else, then look at state spending per capita in each area, I'd think you would see the flow going out of Chicago, not into it.

 

Though of course, state spending/taxation isn't the only cash flow factor at play. The very presence of populations in Chicago contributes to revenues for other parts of the state much more so than the other way around.

 

Maybe i'm wrong. I just see large state projects/grants given to Chicago-centric things - mass transit, health services, public housing, etc. Yes, there are those things downstate, but not nearly as big and not nearly as expensive to build/maintain/fund.

 

As an example, here's an article (partisan statements included) about education spending:

 

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/201...g-inequity.html

 

When the subsidies were divided by total student attendance, said Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, "Chicago's free lunch is $2,223 per student versus $67 per student for downstate and suburban districts." ...

 

For each child in poverty, the Chicago school district gets $2,513 while the Champaign school district gets about $1,100. The Mount Zion district in Macon County gets only $390 per student.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Jenksismybitch