Goodbye, California? Tim Draper Proposes a 6-Way Split 489
Daniel_Stuckey writes that venture capitalist Tim Draper has mooted a plan "to split California into six separate states, he told Tech Crunch, with Silicon Valley emerging as the richest and most powerful of all. The mockery is already pouring in. Of course a rich tech guru wants Silicon Valley to get its own government, so it can be freed from the dusty laws and regulations of California 1.0. Of course a deep undercurrent of self-aggrandizing narcissism runs through the proposal — only one other state-to-be gets an actual name, (inexplicably, 'Jefferson') and the rest are lazily affixed with topographical descriptors: West, South, Central, and North California...Yes, in shaping his doctrine, Draper has conjured the perfect blend of Seasteading's offshore tech nirvana lawlessness, boilerplate Tea Party antiestablishmentarianism, and good ol' secessionist chutzpah."
Jinx (Score:5, Funny)
Any mention of 'Splitting up California' is just tempting fate at this point..
Fail. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course a rich tech guru wants Silicon Valley to get its own government, so it can be freed from the dusty laws and regulations of
Replace "tech guru" with "cotton plantation owner" and suddenly it all makes sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Living in a corporate town run by a coalition of plantation owners paying shit wages, vs living under fat socialist weasels who take big chunks out of them? Choices, choices..
I vote neither! Now, I'd like my rights back please.
Re:Fail. (Score:4, Informative)
Um.. Detroit has been run by liberals for the last 50 years or so. What are you talking about?
Huh? (Score:3)
He's never heard of the "House of Representatives"?
Or is he just unhappy that each state gets an equal vote in the Senate?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, the original system was two bodies, one popularly elected and with proportional representation... and the other elected by the government of the state.
The answer is not giving more senators to more populace states, it's either to abolish the senate (ala unicameral legislature in Nebraska) or repeal the 17th amendment.
Alas to most it does not strike them as odd that the government of Germany, France & Zimbabwe (amongst others) have official representatives in Washington DC... but the government
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could, you know, leave it THE HELL ALONE. OK, I think it would be better going back to the original process wherby the senators were appointed, but what we have is better than some dumbass plan like you propose.
Re: (Score:2)
Dirtbags who represent the special interests that pay them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Congress is composed of two arms, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is designed to give the states equal voting power. The House of Representatives is designed to give the people roughly equal representation.
Why is this so hard to understand? Did you skip that day of 8th grade US Government?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Senate != House (Score:2)
The House is where population is directly represented. The Senate is where States are directly represented. The Senate was supposed to protect the Sovereignty of States (which function was seriously harmed by the 17th Amendment) and limit the ability of a tyranny of the majority. I.e. the lightly populated states could combine forces to stop a majority in the House, which will inevitably be controlled by the big cities.
The interesting thing at the moment is that the Senate is more controlled by the big citi
Jefferson gets a name (Score:5, Informative)
Because it's a preexisting movement: http://www.jeffersonstate.com/
And each part takes a proportional share of debt? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a really small but similar sentiment in Illinois too. The people who live in rural Illinois feel like the people who live in Chicago and the suburban areas surrounding Chicago disproportionately affect Illinois politics. They feel that the state would be better without Chicago.
Re:And each part takes a proportional share of deb (Score:4, Informative)
There is a really small but similar sentiment in Illinois too. The people who live in rural Illinois feel like the people who live in Chicago and the suburban areas surrounding Chicago disproportionately affect Illinois politics. They feel that the state would be better without Chicago.
I can actually understand that sentiment. But the California equivalent would be Central Valley or far northern secessionists. Silicon Valley can't really make the same kind of argument, because it is already very influential in California politics. Of course, it shares that influence with Los Angeles rather than having it entirely to itself, but the Bay Area is one of the state's main political power bases.
up of michigan whats to be on it's own as well (Score:2)
the up of michigan whats to be on it's own as well.
make long inland / NY city into it's own state.
Also cut up Texas into as many as five states,
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting up Texas doesn't really resolve most of the political issues, though. There isn't a huge regional difference in attitudes, but more of an urban/suburban/rural split. The big Texas cities (Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas) are all center-left to varying degrees, while the suburbs are center-right, and the rural areas are hard-right.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm rather confused why anyone in this thread thinks it's a good idea to create state boundaries with the express intent of breaking apart people of different affiliations, political or otherwise. If I'm in a different party than you and we don't see eye to eye, we should talk and reach a compromise, not be put in different rooms so that we can separately stew about what a mean guy that other person is. And what makes political affiliations so special? Why not break up the states based on the predominant re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be argued that Silicon Valley has benefitted the most from the California taxpayer.
Anything can be argued. And a lot of the drive behind the secessionist movement is the debt being accumulated by California as a whole. They don't want that debt.
My view is that the only fair way is to allot a fixed amount of debt per citizen (around $5500-6000 per capita) and let the weaker states go bankrupt.
Good (Score:2)
This is hardly an idea without precedent would better serve the needs of the constituents while be very much in the spirit of the Constitution. Virginia, New York and Massachusetts split and gave us a handful of other states. When states become two politically oriented in one direction for only a given geographical ares while ignoring the wishes and values of the other states they can and should split.
The Constitution was designed to balance the power of the people so that you didn't have any one area with
Re: (Score:2)
This is hardly an idea without precedent would better serve the needs of the constituents while be very much in the spirit of the Constitution. Virginia, New York and Massachusetts split and gave us a handful of other states. When states become two politically oriented in one direction for only a given geographical ares while ignoring the wishes and values of the other states they can and should split.
I'm not sure it was due to political orientation so much as the more basic "There's more people in these here hills, and we ought to have representatives for them to talk to less than a week away by horse."
That isn't to say your premise is invalid -- those people's interests are going unrepresented and splitting them off may better address those needs. But to be honest, New York and California both need to be punched in the face repeatedly by the feds, then bent over and hammered in the ass until they stop
Re: (Score:3)
Fragmented local governments make less and less sense as travel speeds increase and communication costs drop. I think that was already evident when the last 20 states were admitted to the union. Land area of states, and even counties, have trended upwards, and not just because populations were small.
If you fragment the tax base into little local communities, the poor stay poor. It's been a good thing for the "natural splendor" of Arkansas, but mostly, I think we're all better off it we take more even car
California is too large (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason it is this big is because it was established at a time when the population was MUCH lower. Were you to do the same thing in the east coast but in reverse, you might get all of new england as ONE state.
Now do you understand? California is much too big.
The government is almost indifferent to voter opinion because they can always play one part of the state off the other part. Which means they never have to do anything anyone wants. They just mommy/daddy the whole thing and then lie when that doesn't work.
Look. It needs to split because its unweldy, inherently corrupt, and incapable of serving the local needs of its residents.
Everything revolves around Sacramento which is the least consequential portion of the state BESIDES for the politics. Its our version of Washington DC. What does DC do? Tell people what to do. Does it produce anything? Nope. Does it create anything? Nope. It just collects the taxes and decides what to do with it all.
Genius ideas like our "bullet" train which as everyone knows is a giant fiasco... which we knew it would be from the start... because a bullet train in California makes about as much sense as a beach resort on the moon.
But it sounds good to the twits in Sacramento so whatever.
Look, you don't like his plan to split the state... Fine. It doesn't really matter what the plan is so long as its reasonable. We just need a more local government in california. A government that actually lives where we live and cares about us because they're ACTUALLY our neighbors. Sacramento doesn't care about San Diego. It doesn't care about the Imperial Valley. It only cares about Los Angeles because that is where most of the votes come from. But it only cares about it in so far as those votes are concerned. Etc.
Too big. Split it. Even in half isn't enough. It needs to be broken into something like three to six pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
"The government is almost indifferent to voter opinion because they can always play one part of the state off the other part. Which means they never have to do anything anyone wants. They just mommy/daddy the whole thing and then lie when that doesn't work.
Look. It needs to split because its unweldy, inherently corrupt, and incapable of serving the local needs of its residents."
I agree entirely that CA could be split into at least 2 more manageable states.
Then again, I'd point out that there are few argumen
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the 'idiots in Sacramento' spend most of their time living and working in their home districts and only go to Sac to represent their district's interests while the legislature is in session?
Re:California is too large (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I want the state split into smaller states which would maintain their existing limited independence from the federal government.
The feds really have the same problem. They didn't used to have this much power over people or states. It was a much more limited government. And as a result, the territory was manageable because the government was focused on a short list of core responsibilities. Today, its too complicated and the federal government frequently interferes with local government matters.
This leads to the federal government making policies that make sense in one place but don't make sense somewhere else. This is not because they couldn't make different policies for each place but because they have neither the time nor inclination to care to do it. This introduces inefficiencies, unhappiness, and unfairness as some areas get what they want while others do not... for no apparent reason besides that's what the law or some faceless bureaucrat says.
Look. We need state governments and we need a federal government. But for our democracy to survive the government must be responsive to the people and accountable for their actions.
As the government gets larger it accomplishes neither.
By taking on too much territory, the government can't focus on particulars and instead has to make one size fits all rules. These serve no one well.
And by taking on so much territory they acquire a large number of diverse voters with contradictory wishes. And that means that the government can effectively give no one what they want simply by vacillation between one faction and the next. Which often means they don't even try. They just do what the politicians want to do and then dither when that makes people unhappy.
Ultimately, if you value democracy, you are against mass centralization. It renders your vote meaningless.
The State of 'Jefferson' (Score:3, Informative)
No regulations (Score:2, Insightful)
For those of you who haven't been out there, when you walk along the streams, you will see signs that say "DO NOT DRINK FROM THE STREAM!".
Why?
Because they are heavily polluted.
From what?
Silicone Valley companies that operated before our environmental laws existed.
Tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org] indeed.
Business people are too irresponsible not to be regulated.
weird proposed boundaries (Score:4, Insightful)
A split that puts Marin in a different state from SF doesn't make a lot of sense, considering how much commuting goes across the Golden Gate. The greater SF Bay Area should at least be in the same state.
There is another way to do it (Score:4, Interesting)
I've lived in a number of areas of the country. The common political element that rose above all the rest is the differences between the large cities and the rural areas. So, instead of a split by area, make each large city -- San Francisco/San Jose, Los Angeles/Hollywood -- its own state. (What to do about Sacremento? Is it a city or a condition as the State capitol?) Then City interests could be served by the City States, and the rest of the state with its agriculture base would be able to set policies and law for their own.
Other states/areas could be split the same way: Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington DC area, Michigin (peal Detroit from the rest of the State), New York/New Jersey/Connecticut...and the list goes on. We could combine small states into large states -- think Providence Rhode Island versus the rest of the State.
I'm not sure the Democrats would go for this.
Jefferson not inexplicable (Score:2, Interesting)
Jefferson was proposed for parts of southern Oregon and northern California as far back as 1941, according to Wikipedia. I've seen a sign for the State of Jefferson Chamber of Commerce along I-5 somewhere in that area.
A Monumentally Stupid Idea (Score:2)
The US already has too many political subdivisions. We need to combine states into larger political entities (12-15 large states) rather than split the existing ones up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jefferson (Score:4, Interesting)
No comment on whether or not the state of Jefferson would ever be able to support itself without the rest of California, but Tim Draper didn't pull that particular state out of the ether. I have some parents that used to live up in North State, and the hill folk there love the idea of Jefferson.
They even have a website: http://www.jeffersonstate.com/ [jeffersonstate.com]
Re:Jefferson (Score:4, Informative)
The proposal dates back to 1941: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) [wikipedia.org]
what level of government? (Score:2)
"No comment on whether or not the state of Jefferson would ever be able to support itself without the rest of California,"
Support itself at what level of government meddling? Jefferson probably would not be able to support the level of intrusive and all-encompassing supervision, nor provide the level of financial support to it's citizens that is in vogue at UC Berkeley. But it should be able to provide the level of services that its citizens actually feel they need.
Trivial case, do they need a formal Animal
What people are really like (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy needs to be slapped.
Well, at least... (Score:2)
SV has successful industry and a tax base and some hope of supporting itself. As opposed to the blithering morons who want to secede and form North Colorado (or Metherado as one wag said) who apparently have no idea who is actually paying for their schools and roads and police...
NY/NJ/CT (Score:2)
So when will we see the greater NYC area turned into a single state?
The trend towards devolution and smaller, more responsive states is brewing in Europe, so it's no surprise it's also happening here. Is it really democracy when your elected leaders are hundreds of miles away?
Wagering Game (Score:2)
"Sir, I'll see your 8 Californias, and raise you 13 Vermonts."
Pontificating about jerrymandering states isn't really "newsworthy" if there are no real stakes. If it were actually feasible to jerrymander Senate seats (as can be done for the House of Representatives at the state government level), other states would copy it, which is exactly why it would never happen.
debt (Score:2)
So long as these states are jointly and severally liable for all the debt California has rung up so far, I've no objection. (For future debt, they're on their own - and I'd avoid buying bonds issued by most of 'em.)
Too bad he didn't give the rest numbers (Score:2)
An unintentional Code Geass reference would have knocked me out of my chair!
Makes sense (Score:2)
Can't speak for his particular proposal (I haven't looked at it), but the idea of splitting up California has been around for years, and makes a lot of sense. It's far larger and more diverse than most other states, and that makes it really hard to govern. You basically have the SF bay megalopolis (with more population than most other states), the LA/San Diego megalopolis (ditto), the central valley (sparsely populated but with enormous agricultural wealth), and huge rural areas that in many cases don't w
They will still disagree (Score:2)
"This also would gain California much more influence in the federal government (more senators, more electoral votes)."
Since the reason to split it up is that the different regions can't agree, it seems unlikely their Senators would agree after splitting up. They would likely net out to about the same.
I think we should go in the opposite direction (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And could they please take Texas and Florida with them?
Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a good idea, because California, all by itself, has the 8th largest economy in the whole world. It doesn't need the rest of America.
Maybe Oregon and Washington would like to join it, plus some of the other western states like Nevada. All together, they'd easily be the most economically powerful country on Earth, home of all the major tech industries, and free from the idiocy in Washington (DC; the state should rename itself to eliminate this association) and the east coast states, especially the South.
Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (Score:5, Funny)
Signed, Cascadia
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad that an artifact of the nation's early history results in a Senate where a few square post-independence states with tiny populations are effectively able to veto ideas supported by very large majorities of Americans. Splitting states to provide relatively equal populations per Senate district would go a long way towards eliminating the existing gridlock in American politics.
There is simply no reason beyond historical accident why the 40 million people of California have two senators, while the combined 3 million people of the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana have eight senators.
Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (Score:4, Informative)
It's sad that an artifact of the nation's early history results in a Senate where a few square post-independence states with tiny populations are effectively able to veto ideas supported by very large majorities of Americans.
It's a political check on the urban areas.
Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the flaw in your logic is the belief that democracy is an ideal that ought to be strived for. Also, I question your assertion that the Senate wasn't intended as a check on urban areas. It gave the rural southern states representation they wouldn't have had if population was the only metric, especially considering that blacks only counted as 3/5th of a person. Without the senate the south would have been similar to the thirteen colonies compared to England (which, as the urban centers in the north grew exponentially, eventually happened and caused a civil war).
Personally, I don't think it's right for people in cities a thousand+ miles away from my rural home to dictate the laws around here because there's more of them. Democracy only works on a very small scale. When it's expanded from sea to shining sea it becomes a tyranny throughout most the land, whether it's a tyranny for of most the people or not.
Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (Score:4, Insightful)
Democracy only works on a very small scale. When it's expanded from sea to shining sea it becomes a tyranny throughout most the land, whether it's a tyranny for of most the people or not.
Exactly, which is why the country needs to be broken up into smaller, more homogeneous units. Those European countries with the highest standards of living in the world, and the least amounts of corruption, are all small and relatively homogeneous culturally. They don't constantly argue internally over issues like abortion, or the role of government, or socialized healthcare. Democracy is a good thing, compared to the alternatives, but as you say, it just doesn't work on a large scale. The only rational solution is to reduce the scale, by breaking apart the country.
Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, the blissful European countries with cultural homogeneity. Perhaps they don't argue internally, I can't say I pay that much attention. I do recall hearing once or twice of the occasional war between one or two of them, and I note that they've attempted to form overarching economic and political structures in hopes of making such wars less common in the future than they've been in the past.
No doubt the internal arguments in the United States would be fewer if Utah, for example, were its own country. But the thought of a nuclear armed Utah doesn't strike me as an improved geopolitical situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Other than the Basques, it doesn't sound like France's various regions have too much trouble getting along, so there's likely no issue there. The Basques should probably have their own country; their region straddles the France-Spain border, and they've had separatist tendencies for a long time. Spain is definitely not a good example, with 4 different languages, and two of those regions wanting separation (Basque and Catalan). But most other European countries don't have these problems. You mention some
Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (Score:4, Informative)
We were talking about "culturally homogenous" European countries, not linguistically. Languages are one indicator of cultural identity, but not the only one. The situation in France is actually particularly acrimonious, even more so than in Spain, and the French regions do not have any of the protections they have in Spain. Spain seems more troublesome than France precisely because the problem is officially recognised. In France, there is a flat-out denial of regional identities, with administrative boundaries redrawn contrary to local will (the city of Nantes, the capital of old Brittany, is no longer part of Brittany, and this is frequently protested about) and the French government refusing to ratify the European Charter of Minority Languages because "French is the language of the republic". Breton activists regularly protest by spraypainting or taking down French roadsigns (and I believe they've actually succeeded in getting some of their railway stations bilingually signed) and the Corsicans have a long history of shooting holes in the French half of bilingual roadsigns. While I was living in Corsica, the North Corsican assembly was putting through a bill to make Corsican co-official with French in the area, even though technically they had no powers to do so. It was an illegal act as an act of protest to France's treatment of regional languages.
The Saami are not analogous to the Pennsylvania Dutch. They're a minority population-wise, but they have a huge territory which leads to conflicts between the needs of the reindeer herders and the state's desire to open up mineral explorations in the area.
Re: (Score:3)
When aren't the Italians talking about revolution? The south of Europe isn't having problems because of the European Union, they're having economic issues for the same reason most of the US is; the New York banksters.
Most of Europe has abandoned local currencies for the Euro, which is pretty much an irreversible process. Many of their economies could not have survived the last decade if their currencies had still been susceptible to the predation of currency speculators like George Soros and the slime a
Re: (Score:3)
The dream world you live in is actually the current state of the State of California. California has a bicameral legislature with a house and a senate, just like Washington D.C., but both elected by population. The result is exactly as others have pointed out--the urban areas run roughshod over the rural areas like the one I live in. The courts adjudicate the law, they don't write it, and in a state where the Constitution can be amended as easily as a whiteboard 'equal justice' is more like 'mob rule'. Why
Re: (Score:3)
You, and everyone else bitching about the makeup of the US Congress and specifically the senate, need to go back and retake middle school civics.
The Senate, at the country's inception, WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE POPULARLY ELECTED.
You have a bicameral legislature - the House of Representatives, who's members are popularly elected by the residents of the states, and the Senate - who's membership was, until the horrific fuck up that is the 17th Amendment was passed shortly after the turn of the 20th century, sel
Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (Score:5, Insightful)
California has a huge agriculture industry, you idiot.
Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (Score:5, Informative)
CA is broke.
California has a $2.4 billion surplus, [sfgate.com] about same as Texas. [texastribune.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That will be cool.
We would impose an import tariff on all goods leaving California and we will give tax incentives to companies to move to the other 49 states. You will no longer enjoy all that pork from US military bases or contracts. Oh and you will have to pay 100% of your welfare, medicaid, and medicare expenses. Any of that technology that originates from federal grants will move out, and ITAR will prevent any new tech being easily exported to California.
Let's know how it works out.
Try again (Score:5, Informative)
Last year, California sent $292.6 billion in federal taxes to the US government. California received $258.9 billion in federal spending. In other words, the federal government received nearly $34 billion dollars more from the state of California than was spent in the state.
Let's see how it works out indeed.
There's a sizable (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I can't see abandoning them, but then again I think the point of civilization isn't to protect property but to improve the lives of everyone. That's a fundamental philosophy that a lot disagree with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I can't see abandoning them
Why not? If the voters in those states fundamentally disagree with you (and most of the rest of the country) on basic matters such as healthcare and other important factors, why do you want to keep them as part of your country so you can continue to butt heads with them? Some European countries have had socialized medicine for over a century now. We're not going to get there any time soon as long as we have so much diversity of political thought in this country.
That'
Re: (Score:2)
number of people [google.com] that would like to see the South go. They take in more federal dollars than they give while electing Representatives that campaign against receiving those dollars. They're largely the reason the rest of the Country can't have socialized medicine. Personally I can't see abandoning them, but then again I think the point of civilization isn't to protect property but to improve the lives of everyone. That's a fundamental philosophy that a lot disagree with.
Noble of ya.
I'd go for that experiment. I know who'd I'd bet on, but whatever ... why not give it a try?
Define "improve" (Score:2, Insightful)
"the point of civilization isn't to protect property but to improve the lives of everyone. That's a fundamental philosophy that a lot disagree with."
I might well disagree, depending on who defines "improve the lives of everyone". The world has plenty of unhappy experience with those who are convinced they can run other peoples lives better than they can.
What about IP laws if they secede then (Score:2)
What about IP laws if they secede then they may lose rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't secession be illegal?
More generally, wouldn't any movement to secede be considered sedition, and thus subject those involved in it to several years in prison?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the idea is entirely retarded and the product of depraved minds?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Government doesn't want that and any forwarding thinking citizen should hate the idea too. There is no way for a single body government to effectively govern a mass of people of such diverse backgrounds and over such a diverse landscape effectively. Unless you have them do much less than they do today and let the people do for themselves again...
Re: (Score:2)
A single top-down government would indeed be terrible. On the other hand the state boundaries that we have now are fairly arbitrary and were the product of events that occurred long ago, in an entirely different economy and an entirely different lifestyle. It's not clear that they retain the value they once did in terms of the "representative" part of representative democracy.
I would suggest that geography isn't, and hasn't been, a driving force in self-identification in this country for quite some time. Ur
Re:Lets to the opposite and merge (Score:5, Funny)
Now, what could we call this entity? The Grouped Together Localities? The Aggregated Places Between Mexico and Canada? The Strongly Connected States of America?
Well, I'm sure we'll come up with something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When you see stuff like Texas editing school books or North Carolina allowing cousins to marry, but not gay cousins, the states don't know much better than the federal government what is best for their citizens. We might as well either combine it all into one piece and pool the disfunctionality, or break the country into pieces that better resemble the regional needs of modern America.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You can move from Texas to Arizona if you don't like the book thing, and you can move from North Carolina to Massachusetts if you don't like the cousin thing. Or to those states if you filter the other way on those issues.
If there's only one government, though, you're putting a lot of pressure on that government to satisfy everyone. Without the relief valve of relocating, you're only increasing the chance that the people who don't like various policies will feel their only option remaining is violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Since you boldly make the proposal, I will counter with a better one. Disband the US and let the States be what their name says they are: independent states.
I fear neither of our proposals will be very popular.
Re: (Score:2)
California is such a large state that it ends up having being ruled by the whims of the people of LA. Everything from gun laws, to environmental regulations, to labor laws... or put another way the only reason it's a blue state is because of LA. The number of counties hat end up being 'red counties' is fairly substantial. But they usually get overruled by their opposition.
Of course IS how representative democracy works... but at the level of population containing with wildly different political ideologues as you have in California you start to have a good example of 'the tyranny of the majority'.
Except for the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th....
You get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am a firm beli
Re: (Score:3)
California is already split into numerous pieces. Drawing some lines and formalizing it will allow each of those pieces to govern themselves as they see fit and allow people to stop bitching at each other for tromping on each others "rights".
This is certainly true on paper. In practice California is tied together in ways that aren't easy to undo. Take, for example, disputes over water underlies some of the regional hostility; under the plan region 4 realistically can't gain control of its water resources. It still must supply region 3 and 5 with water lest they dry up and blow away.
A specialized state loses some economic flexibility; in a tech down turn they aren't as buoyed agriculture and vice versa. You lose some economies of scale; winer
Re: (Score:3)
6 pieces is really too much, I think. A better plan is to start with the 38 States [tjc.com] proposal from the 70s, and update it a bit for the times.
Re: (Score:3)
Things have changed in 40 years. Not that much, but some: just look at the populations of cities in the rust-belt states then and now. They've shrunk. Southern states (east and west) have gained population. Phoenix, for example, is much, much larger than it was in the 70s.
Also, the 38-state plan was made by some college class. It was based on some really good principles and ideas, such as making sure no metro areas cross state lines, however it surely didn't involve actually going around the country an
Re: (Score:2)
I was noticing that the boundaries seem arbitrary. For instance, his area 2 goes from the coast north of San Francisco to the Nevada state line. This area incorporates at least three very different cultures. At the coast, Marin County should really be part of the San Francisco, Silicon Valley area. Heading West through the Central Valley to Sacramento is really a completely different area (primarily farming). Then you get to the Sierra Nevada Range which is a third area which is completely different cultura
Re: (Score:3)
Hell no. S. Cal has to take Bakersfield and Fresno.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say merge the Carolinas, Dakotas & Virginias (-3), and then do the above split of CA. Instead of 6 states, make it 3 - North coast (starting from San Louis Obispo and going right up to OR), South Coast (from Santa Barbara to San Diego) and Inland (Calexico to Eureka). Sacramento would remain the capital of inland CA, make Oakland the capital of the North Coast and Compton the capital of the South Coast. Stars go down to 49, and you can have a 7x7 array, and make the corner a square strip.
Or
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I think it would be best to just get rid of the Senate completely.
It's totally non-functional due to arcane rules and inherently undemocratic since states like Rhode Island and Wyoming (population less than 1 million) get the same number of senators as large states like New York and California.
A parliamentary system would make for a much more functional government.
Re:Do it (Score:5, Interesting)
The entire point of the senate is to provide an equal voice to all members of the federation....besides....the most undemocratic behavior is gerrimandering and that is a behavior seen in the house.
Congressional districts should be required to be closed and compact boarders that meet the population requirements for a district to exist. These things should be drawn by a computer using standard topological analysis, not a committee created by what ever party happens to be in control of the state at the time.
Re: (Score:3)
The Supreme Court just struck down the specific state provisions of the voting rights act.
The act was passed by the Senate so presumably the needs of all states were considered when it was originally passed.
No need for the Senate.
The "commerce clause" has been broadly interpreted as the justification for a lot of Federal legislation. There are limits on what you can do to your citizens. Frankly, I trust the Federal government to do a better job of passing "fair" legislation than the States. Mississippi woul
Re: (Score:2)
Captain Smith, Captain Smith! Should these deckchairs go over here or over there?
Re:Do it (Score:5, Interesting)
That seems highly unlikely, if you actually look at the map. California's entire coastline, except for the San Diego area, skews heavily blue (and even San Diego is lightly blue), so the opposite would probably be true - only California 4 (on his map) would likely elect Republican senators. Keep in mind the coasts are also far more heavily populated. So it'd probably be 8-2 the other way.
http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/US_election/figs/CA.png [ncsu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do it (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't even need to go as far as you did. First they have to get by Article IV Section 3 of the US Constitution:
Re: Do it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If two demographically different groups are also geographically distant, is one group being larger a reason to give it dominion over the other?
Parent is so WRONG: (Score:2)
1) CA has a larger economy than most other nations on earth.
2) CA pays more to the federal government than it gets back. (something people who bitch a lot never bother to look up.)
3) CA pays more to the federal government than any other state.
I think they should split up or change how senators are allocated because it's totally moronic that small nothing states are on a fully equal footing with much larger states. Senators have too much power too... which made far more sense when they were picked by state
Seceding from country, not planet (Score:2)
California leaving the union would not end all trade relations with them. If nothing else they will have to keep selling stuff to the rest of the US to pay for their electric bill.
Given they already demand special air quality rules, special water quality rules, and have marked their entire State as carcinogenic, and keep claiming they pay more in taxes than they get back, you would think they would ask to leave.
Stomping off in a huff and shelling a Federal military post on your way out has been previously