3 ms·

Jefferson's representation in US Congress would be ceremonial at best. Their population is too small. They are much more likely to get concessions from the stat

Jefferson's representation in US Congress would be ceremonial at best. Their population is too small. They are much more likely to get concessions from the state than the dysfunctional federal government.

mc32 10y ago
Do you think Idaho's representation in the US congress is "ceremonial at best"? Those 21 counties constitute a nice slice of CA pop and given their agricultural might, I think the US congress would give them some attention.
- intopieces 10y ago
  Idaho was admitted to the US in 1890. That's a 127 year head start at forging a place in national politics. A state's politician does not get taken seriously merely by existing, but by long-held ties between the representative the surrounding economic regions. These ties take time to establish. By the time anyone started taking The State of Jefferson seriously, the entire secession movement will be in old age homes, long since squandering any immediate benefit they could have gotten had they negotiated with the closest government instead of the furthest.
  - mc32 10y ago
    I don' think that's quite right. It's not a backwater without economic output. Dems and esp Reps would try to woo the new state given the relative equilibrium in electoral college votes as well as in the senate. Sacto really pays little attention to "Jefferson" They care much more about the noisy areas like SF and LA. Looks at how Sacto manages water rights. It's all about the cities. A Jefferson might become more assertive about their water and the rights to it.
    - intopieces 10y ago
      Yes, they care more about the places with more voters and more taxpayers. Those counties mentioned in the article are experiencing net losses in population, even as the state grows. It is not in their best interest to separate themselves from the economic powerhouses of SF and LA.

3 ms·

Jefferson's representation in US Congress would be ceremonial at best. Their population is too small. They are much more likely to get concessions from the stat

by intopieces 10y ago

mc32 10y ago
Do you think Idaho's representation in the US congress is "ceremonial at best"? Those 21 counties constitute a nice slice of CA pop and given their agricultural might, I think the US congress would give them some attention.
- intopieces 10y ago
  Idaho was admitted to the US in 1890. That's a 127 year head start at forging a place in national politics. A state's politician does not get taken seriously merely by existing, but by long-held ties between the representative the surrounding economic regions. These ties take time to establish. By the time anyone started taking The State of Jefferson seriously, the entire secession movement will be in old age homes, long since squandering any immediate benefit they could have gotten had they negotiated with the closest government instead of the furthest.
  - mc32 10y ago
    I don' think that's quite right. It's not a backwater without economic output. Dems and esp Reps would try to woo the new state given the relative equilibrium in electoral college votes as well as in the senate. Sacto really pays little attention to "Jefferson" They care much more about the noisy areas like SF and LA. Looks at how Sacto manages water rights. It's all about the cities. A Jefferson might become more assertive about their water and the rights to it.
    - intopieces 10y ago
      Yes, they care more about the places with more voters and more taxpayers. Those counties mentioned in the article are experiencing net losses in population, even as the state grows. It is not in their best interest to separate themselves from the economic powerhouses of SF and LA.