6 ms·

Calexit: The “Bad Boys of Brexit” throw their weight behind move to split state

24 points by cagey 10y ago

masterleep 10y ago
It is rather absurd how large California is compared to many other states. There should be a general process to split large states rather than doing this as a one-off though. For example, after the 10-year census, the largest state gets divided in half.
- CalChris 10y ago
  How about instead merging North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana? 739,482 + 853,175 + 584,153 + 1.024M = 3,200,810 which is less than the population of LA but for some stupid reason has 8 Senators.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - masterleep 10y ago
    Merging states is impractical compared to splitting them, because state law is so different in each state. The split states can inherit their existing laws, but there is no simple way to reconcile laws in a merged state.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      Just brainstorming here, but have the citizens vote in a referendum on which state's laws to keep. And then they can further tweak from there.
  - scottLobster 10y ago
    I get your point, but bad example. The Senate was never designed around population. In fact it's original purpose was to represent the incumbent state governments vs the house representing "the people". It wasn't until 1913 that Senators were popularly elected.
    - CalChris 10y ago
      Wyoming has a population of 584,153. California has a population of 38.8 million, 66 times more population. They both have 2 Senators. California also pays more than its share in Federal taxes and gets less in Federal spending. If you look at the Base Closure Commission list, CA lost 28. Mississippi isn't even on the list because they didn't lose any. Your originalist argument means nothing.
      - scottLobster 10y ago
        You're judging a system by standards it was never intended to meet and declaring victory. If you're going to argue that small states are over-represented, do it well. Plenty of examples of Gerrymandering as well as the electoral college itself. If you want to debate whether the Senate should exist or not, or whether it serves a purpose or not, or whether how senators are allocated should be changed or not, then fine. But that's a whole other thread. I'd also argue that the Senate serves the important purpose of preventing abuse-of-the-majority, a problem known as far back as Ancient Greek democracy and well-considered by the founders. Getting rid of the Senate or making Senator allocation population-based with no further structural modifications would simply turn us into the United City-states of America. Which is great... if you live in a city and aren't a regional political minority.
        CalChris 10y ago
        The Senate is of Roman origin and definitely not Greek. The form of government it emulates is republican and not democratic. Et cetera.
        narrowrail 10y ago
        Given your comments, I believe you should read some of the Federalist Papers. Specifically, #10, #39 and #45. The states were designed to be the democracies, but the federal governments was designed as a republic; this was very deliberate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45
  - pheldagryph 10y ago
    > but for some stupid reason has 8 Senators The constitution? The desire of rural Westerners to not be directly governed by urban voters in Northeastern or Southwestern megacities? The incrementalism of Manifest Destiny?
- toast0 10y ago
  Ignoring the massive issues in state governance that would result; if you're splitting the most populous in half, you should also join the smallest state to a neighbor. If the least populous state is Alaska or Hawaii, set it free from the union.
  - masterleep 10y ago
    Compared to merging states, splitting them is quite practical.
  - pheldagryph 10y ago
    > If the least populous state is Alaska or Hawaii, set it free from the union. Wyoming, followed by Vermont are the least populous states.
    - toast0 10y ago
      Sure, but after who knows how long, Alaska is going to come up. You have to make these rules suitable for forever, because they're hard to change.
      - pheldagryph 10y ago
        The current rules on statehood are suitable to Alaskans.
- chrismcb 10y ago
  When do you stop spring a state? When it is the size of a city? Or the size of a neighborhood? How will spring the state really change anything, on the federal level? It might make things better locally, as some of the local government gets closer to the people. But how will this makes things better for people outside of that state?
tabeth 10y ago
What exactly would be the advantage of Calexit? 1. Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy. 2. The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states consider following California. I believe this to be true because let's face it, there are certain states that subsidize others. This has to be true, given the discrepancies of wealth between them. 3. Arguably much of the success of the United States comes from the cohesion between the states, hence the name. To leave the United States undermines its very existence. Am I missing something? EDIT: Also, more practically, would California even afford to maintain its current existence without the many subsidies it presumably receives as part of its membership of the US?
- rorykoehler 10y ago
  I don't understand how it would undermine democracy. Can you explain please? Surely it would just redraw the lines and democracy would continue.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    In a working democracy, "my side lost" means reformulating until the next election. When you throw in "redraw boundaries," it adds epicycles [1]. This is workable--if undesirable--at lower levels, e.g. Congressional districts [2]. It falls apart at the scales of Constitutional quantums, i.e. branches of the federal government and states. If your group can double its exposure in the Senate, why can't mine? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-says-texas-congressional-districts-gerrymandered-to-hurt-minorities/2017/03/11/97b6ab0a-0685-11e7-b9fa-ed727b644a0b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-say...
    - Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
If this phenomenon keeps successfully manifesting itself across the world's democracies, we can only conclude one of 3 things: 1. Democracy, in our current world state (i.e. in the modern mass media, social media, et cetera landscape), does not work and needs to be replaced; 2. Western democracy is corrupted to the point of needing to be rebooted (despite the necessary fact that this will result in a likely annihilation of much of the West's population and factors of production); or 3. The British and Trump cases cannot be generalized to all Western democracies. I'm betting on 3, but I don't feel great about it.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  "Only" is a strong word. How about: democracies work best in smaller countries. It may be much harder to have a healthy democracy spanning an entire continent, whether that continent is North America or Europe.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > How about: democracies work best in smaller countries Sounds like Scenario 3. (Note: Swiss American here.) Either way, why would mass media make large democracies weaker compared to smaller ones. Separately, does this mean democracy is incompatible with an interplanetary species? Democracy being fundamentally unscalable is a Scenario 1 problem for anyone aspiring towards larger civilizations.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      > Either way, why would mass media make large democracies weaker compared to smaller ones. It's hard to be all things to all people. It's easier to be all things to a smaller, more targeted group of people. I prefer to square this circle by making fewer things national issues. I seem to be in the minority in that opinion, but perhaps these sorts of discussions will make people reconsider the issue. Federalism is a way to make the national government stronger by making it focus on its core competencies and leave more cultural issues (among others) to state and local governments.
provost 10y ago
If anyone is looking for the legal perspective, I believe the Supreme Court's "Texas v White" is the pivotal case. From Wikipedia [1] : >> In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  I think the legal case is the Civil War. I would wholly support, even today, deploying the U.S. Army against secessionist forces.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    If the state of California decided to be a republic, I absolutely wouldn't be comfortable shooting people as a form of disagreement.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
theparanoid 10y ago
Far northern California and southern Oregon came the closest in the 40s, with the State of Jefferson. Today, almost all parts of California are more left leaning.
epmatsw 10y ago
On one hand, it's hard to be mad about people wanting their government to be more direct and representative of their desires. On the other, if this happens you might as well split fully out into 50 nations, because the federal government can't wield any real power if a state can choose to ignore the will of the others and up and leave. That would be a shame I think.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mirimir 10y ago
> “Texas nationalists” largely reflect a far-right or neo-Confederate worldview. California secessionists are almost uniformly leftists disgusted by conservative hegemony in the heartland. They don’t have much in common when it comes to their views of governance, but they do have a powerful shared ally — the Russian Federation. https://www.salon.com/2016/12/29/russia-calexit-texit-dissent/ https://www.salon.com/2016/12/29/russia-calexit-texit-dissen...
ryandrake 10y ago
> Meanwhile, a second Calexit campaign is underway. It’s called Yes California and it would see the state succeeding from America entirely. Wow, someone needs to proofread Mercury News...
- mustoffa 10y ago
  Say Yes to success
MilnerRoute 10y ago
Er, the whole story is based on an article in The Daily Mail -- a British newspaper that Wikipedia recently banned as "an unreliable source." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...
tmaly 10y ago
I think we have to start taking the 10th amendment seriously. It was not put there to be ignored. If we are a republic, states should have say as they did when this country was formed. People in California should be able to live as they please, but still be part of the country. Too much centralization in DC is causing these feelings.

24 points by cagey 10y ago

It is rather absurd how large California is compared to many other states. There should be a general process to split large states rather than doing this as a one-off though. For example, after the 10-year census, the largest state gets divided in half.

CalChris 10y ago
How about instead merging North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana? 739,482 + 853,175 + 584,153 + 1.024M = 3,200,810 which is less than the population of LA but for some stupid reason has 8 Senators.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- masterleep 10y ago
  Merging states is impractical compared to splitting them, because state law is so different in each state. The split states can inherit their existing laws, but there is no simple way to reconcile laws in a merged state.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    Just brainstorming here, but have the citizens vote in a referendum on which state's laws to keep. And then they can further tweak from there.
- scottLobster 10y ago
  I get your point, but bad example. The Senate was never designed around population. In fact it's original purpose was to represent the incumbent state governments vs the house representing "the people". It wasn't until 1913 that Senators were popularly elected.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    Wyoming has a population of 584,153. California has a population of 38.8 million, 66 times more population. They both have 2 Senators. California also pays more than its share in Federal taxes and gets less in Federal spending. If you look at the Base Closure Commission list, CA lost 28. Mississippi isn't even on the list because they didn't lose any. Your originalist argument means nothing.
    - scottLobster 10y ago
      You're judging a system by standards it was never intended to meet and declaring victory. If you're going to argue that small states are over-represented, do it well. Plenty of examples of Gerrymandering as well as the electoral college itself. If you want to debate whether the Senate should exist or not, or whether it serves a purpose or not, or whether how senators are allocated should be changed or not, then fine. But that's a whole other thread. I'd also argue that the Senate serves the important purpose of preventing abuse-of-the-majority, a problem known as far back as Ancient Greek democracy and well-considered by the founders. Getting rid of the Senate or making Senator allocation population-based with no further structural modifications would simply turn us into the United City-states of America. Which is great... if you live in a city and aren't a regional political minority.
      - CalChris 10y ago
        The Senate is of Roman origin and definitely not Greek. The form of government it emulates is republican and not democratic. Et cetera.
        narrowrail 10y ago
        Given your comments, I believe you should read some of the Federalist Papers. Specifically, #10, #39 and #45. The states were designed to be the democracies, but the federal governments was designed as a republic; this was very deliberate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45
- pheldagryph 10y ago
  > but for some stupid reason has 8 Senators The constitution? The desire of rural Westerners to not be directly governed by urban voters in Northeastern or Southwestern megacities? The incrementalism of Manifest Destiny?
toast0 10y ago
Ignoring the massive issues in state governance that would result; if you're splitting the most populous in half, you should also join the smallest state to a neighbor. If the least populous state is Alaska or Hawaii, set it free from the union.
- masterleep 10y ago
  Compared to merging states, splitting them is quite practical.
- pheldagryph 10y ago
  > If the least populous state is Alaska or Hawaii, set it free from the union. Wyoming, followed by Vermont are the least populous states.
  - toast0 10y ago
    Sure, but after who knows how long, Alaska is going to come up. You have to make these rules suitable for forever, because they're hard to change.
    - pheldagryph 10y ago
      The current rules on statehood are suitable to Alaskans.
chrismcb 10y ago
When do you stop spring a state? When it is the size of a city? Or the size of a neighborhood? How will spring the state really change anything, on the federal level? It might make things better locally, as some of the local government gets closer to the people. But how will this makes things better for people outside of that state?

tabeth 10y ago

What exactly would be the advantage of Calexit? 1. Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy. 2. The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states consider following California. I believe this to be true because let's face it, there are certain states that subsidize others. This has to be true, given the discrepancies of wealth between them. 3. Arguably much of the success of the United States comes from the cohesion between the states, hence the name. To leave the United States undermines its very existence. Am I missing something? EDIT: Also, more practically, would California even afford to maintain its current existence without the many subsidies it presumably receives as part of its membership of the US?

rorykoehler 10y ago
I don't understand how it would undermine democracy. Can you explain please? Surely it would just redraw the lines and democracy would continue.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  In a working democracy, "my side lost" means reformulating until the next election. When you throw in "redraw boundaries," it adds epicycles [1]. This is workable--if undesirable--at lower levels, e.g. Congressional districts [2]. It falls apart at the scales of Constitutional quantums, i.e. branches of the federal government and states. If your group can double its exposure in the Senate, why can't mine? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-says-texas-congressional-districts-gerrymandered-to-hurt-minorities/2017/03/11/97b6ab0a-0685-11e7-b9fa-ed727b644a0b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-say...
  - Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

If this phenomenon keeps successfully manifesting itself across the world's democracies, we can only conclude one of 3 things: 1. Democracy, in our current world state (i.e. in the modern mass media, social media, et cetera landscape), does not work and needs to be replaced; 2. Western democracy is corrupted to the point of needing to be rebooted (despite the necessary fact that this will result in a likely annihilation of much of the West's population and factors of production); or 3. The British and Trump cases cannot be generalized to all Western democracies. I'm betting on 3, but I don't feel great about it.

humanrebar 10y ago
"Only" is a strong word. How about: democracies work best in smaller countries. It may be much harder to have a healthy democracy spanning an entire continent, whether that continent is North America or Europe.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > How about: democracies work best in smaller countries Sounds like Scenario 3. (Note: Swiss American here.) Either way, why would mass media make large democracies weaker compared to smaller ones. Separately, does this mean democracy is incompatible with an interplanetary species? Democracy being fundamentally unscalable is a Scenario 1 problem for anyone aspiring towards larger civilizations.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > Either way, why would mass media make large democracies weaker compared to smaller ones. It's hard to be all things to all people. It's easier to be all things to a smaller, more targeted group of people. I prefer to square this circle by making fewer things national issues. I seem to be in the minority in that opinion, but perhaps these sorts of discussions will make people reconsider the issue. Federalism is a way to make the national government stronger by making it focus on its core competencies and leave more cultural issues (among others) to state and local governments.

provost 10y ago

If anyone is looking for the legal perspective, I believe the Supreme Court's "Texas v White" is the pivotal case. From Wikipedia [1] : >> In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
I think the legal case is the Civil War. I would wholly support, even today, deploying the U.S. Army against secessionist forces.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  If the state of California decided to be a republic, I absolutely wouldn't be comfortable shooting people as a form of disagreement.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

theparanoid 10y ago

Far northern California and southern Oregon came the closest in the 40s, with the State of Jefferson. Today, almost all parts of California are more left leaning.

epmatsw 10y ago

On one hand, it's hard to be mad about people wanting their government to be more direct and representative of their desires. On the other, if this happens you might as well split fully out into 50 nations, because the federal government can't wield any real power if a state can choose to ignore the will of the others and up and leave. That would be a shame I think.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

mirimir 10y ago

> “Texas nationalists” largely reflect a far-right or neo-Confederate worldview. California secessionists are almost uniformly leftists disgusted by conservative hegemony in the heartland. They don’t have much in common when it comes to their views of governance, but they do have a powerful shared ally — the Russian Federation. https://www.salon.com/2016/12/29/russia-calexit-texit-dissent/ https://www.salon.com/2016/12/29/russia-calexit-texit-dissen...

ryandrake 10y ago

> Meanwhile, a second Calexit campaign is underway. It’s called Yes California and it would see the state succeeding from America entirely. Wow, someone needs to proofread Mercury News...

mustoffa 10y ago
Say Yes to success

MilnerRoute 10y ago

Er, the whole story is based on an article in The Daily Mail -- a British newspaper that Wikipedia recently banned as "an unreliable source." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...

tmaly 10y ago

I think we have to start taking the 10th amendment seriously. It was not put there to be ignored. If we are a republic, states should have say as they did when this country was formed. People in California should be able to live as they please, but still be part of the country. Too much centralization in DC is causing these feelings.