5 ms·

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

by 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
    The key words being "in a working democracy". I think the US has poor democracy. The electoral college means my vote here in California doesn't matter (I typically don't participate in the charade of the presidential election although I do vote in other races, mostly state wide). Same for a Texan's vote. I think Brexit was stupid so I'm hesitant to support Calexit, but I think the unfair system definitely fuels the flames. I have to admit it would be nice to live in a country where my vote would count no matter where in the country I'm from.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      > key words being "in a working democracy" We don't have a great democracy. But it's a democracy. (If you can realistically discuss seceding, you're in a free country.) Perhaps the fatal flaw of democracies is their No True Scotsman [1] tendency. If every democracy can tear itself apart when some fraction of it feels it is no longer a democracy, and if that threshold is too low, then non-democracies will outperform the democracies. (I do not believe this is the case.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
      - gremlinsinc 10y ago
        Actually it's a republic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeTbDdl7XiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeTbDdl7XiE
      - Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago
        > We don't have a great democracy. But it's a democracy. "Democracy" is not binary. You can embody the idea of "democracy" to various degrees. For example, the US is certainly _more_ of a democracy now that African Americans and women can vote. In the future, it may become even more of a democracy if every adult can cast a meaningful vote regardless of what state they're resident in. > (If you can realistically discuss seceding, you're in a free country.) I'm not sure this has anything to do with democracy. Canada peacefully seceded from the [non-democractic] Commonwealth in 1867.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Dan_Nguyen 10y ago
Nope. Those are my thoughts exactly. The obvious implication of CalExit to me is civil war. Like you I definitely think a state leaving undermines the very nature of the United States. Political motivations aside, the idea of California leaving bears many similarities to South Carolina during the 1800s, and we know how quickly that turned into war. For me it's an amusing thought to entertain as a form of escapism but I really hope people aren't taking this seriously. It'd be disastrous for both the country and California.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > ...the idea of California leaving bears many similarities to South Carolina during the 1800s, and we know how quickly that turned into war. 1. Asking people ignore slavery's contributions to the civil war is not reasonable. 2. Many states, California included to some degree, feel the very nature of the United States has been slowly eroding for some time with no real checks on that erosion. There will be a tipping point eventually. Peaceful secessions (with the option to re-enter the union if it's mutually agreed upon) seem like a good way for states to enforce the principles of federalism, especially since the national government, Supreme Court included, seem disinterested in that goal. Real violence seems the most likely when people feel wronged, unheard, and that they have no reasonable and peaceful way to address the issues. Keeping people trapped in a country they feel doesn't represent them seems like a recipe for violence, not a way to preserve the peace.
  - Dan_Nguyen 10y ago
    1. Even if you take slavery into account, I see a lot of similarities between the Civil War and CalExit. For the southern states, many wanted to keep slavery for economic reasons. It was very cheap labor, and banning slavery would have meant less money for Southern states imposed on them by outsiders who did not live their societies or work their jobs. I see the same parallels here with CalExit. Even on this thread, people bring up how California unfairly pays more net to the federal government while red states take more federal resources. CalExit doesn't have the (IMO) moral reprehension of slavery, but from my perspective I see people upset that outsiders who don't share our lives and views are dictating our bottom line. 2. I highly doubt that the federal government would let any state undergo peaceful secession. A secession by its nature is a threat to the United States. Allowing states to leave will mean the states aren't united. Furthermore, it won't just be California. Off the top of my head, states like Washington, Oregon, and New York are generally as unhappy as California in with the state of our government, and allowing one state to leave will open the floodgates for other states. This to me means the obvious consequence is violence erupts if we attempt to secede, even with peaceful intentions at first. As another user on this thread stated, California will not win an armed conflict. The US military is much stronger than our California National Guard. I understand your political sentiments, and I do agree that the current state of national politics is a major issue. However, I don't see a peaceful CalExit as either practical or realistic.
dap 10y ago
I think you're right about all that, and that it's even worse than that. With what military would the new California defend itself? What would stop the United States-sans-California from immediately annexing California as a territory, putting things in the exact same situation as now, but without any of the self-determination afforded by being a state? I don't know how realistic that is, but it's hard to reason about the hypothetical world where this proposal succeeds, and it seems like a serious risk. Escape is not the solution. All it does is leave the world's most powerful country in the control of the people you disagreed so strongly with that you wanted to leave.
- warlox 10y ago
  Then again, if all the blue states left, the remaining country would no longer be the most powerful country.
  - Dan_Nguyen 10y ago
    Maybe not, but the remaining country can still severely harm California. Additionally I wouldn't assume that California-based military will support CalExit. I lived in San Diego and spent a lot of time with active duty sailors + marines down there when I attended Community College. They were from all over the country, and the vast majority were from red states. I befriended active duty military from Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Carolina. Conversely, despite being a military city I only came across two people from California. What I'm getting at is in the event of civil war I can't see the majority of armed forces in California supporting CalExit.
- toast0 10y ago
  Maybe the California national guard; although since it's federally funded, it may need to follow the money. The California State Military Reserve is a fully state agency, although it's much smaller, and it's potentially subject to command by the President as well.
humanrebar 10y ago
> This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy. I would suspect that the parties would realign and there would still be healthy political competition, eventually if not in the short term. > there are certain states that subsidize others This meme is true in some respects, but contains a limited perspective. California is a net contributor of money, but other states are net contributors of other things. Young American technologists, for example, move to the Bay Area. They're not born and trained there to move to the Kentucky technology scene, at least that's not the trend yet. The ranks of the military is disproportionately filled by young people from red states. California is a net importer of water. And so on.
warlox 10y ago
> 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? Yes, because it sends more to the federal government than it receives in subsidies.
- pheldagryph 10y ago
  Disagree. Statehood is an inherent subsidy, what with how interstate commerce is protected and the international peace maintained. Many Federal expenditures are not motivated by per-capita considerations, but rather foreign-strategic considerations. Federal tax income vs Federal spending is not the right way to value a state's membership in the Union, the costs of secession are. Is the United States as a whole greater than the sum of its parts?
Houshalter 10y ago
>Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy. I really don't think this is likely. People mention this about every demographic change. How if women didn't get the right to vote, republicans would have won every major election. Or if immigration continues at the current rate, republicans will never win again. But isn't it weird that the current demographics happen to be balanced almost perfectly between republicans and democrats? What's the probability of that happening by chance? If California left, the median voter would move a bit to the right, sure. But the parties would move to follow the median voter as they always have, and balance things out. Maybe the Republicans benefit in the short term. But after being in power long enough, there would be more voters wanting change than are satisfied with the status quo. Which always happens eventually. And the cyclical nature of our democracy would continue. And the trends and demographics of the US are moving left in the long term anyway. Removing California only delays that.
- tabeth 10y ago
  You make an excellent point, however I think the main difference between this compared to 15th or 19th amendments is that this wouldn't apply to all of the states and roughly equal amounts.
bsder 10y ago
> What exactly would be the advantage of Calexit? California would immediately have 30% more money due to not funding the red states. > 1. Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy. Not a great argument to the blue states. Blue states really wouldn't care as they would leave the red staters and their corrupt congressmen to wallow in penury without blue state money. > 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. The Civil War was won because the North had the population and the production. The blue states have the production and the population. The red states would not win if it came to civil war and, if things actually came to Calexit, it would be likely be CoastalExit. In addition, the armed services are now very much "Just In Time". If you shut down California, you're going to have a very difficult time resupplying and repairing your army. California can simply let your army grind to a halt while waiting you out. Logistics through hostile territory is EXCRUCIATINGLY expensive. The army couldn't secure Baghdad; they'll have no hope with LA or SF. Finally, Californians really don't begrudge helping the red states out. Honestly. What they begrudge is then getting stabbed in the back while doing so. I think that every Representative, Senator, and Governor from a "taker" state should have to make public request and obeisance to the representatives of "giver" states on national television right after the State of Union or their state doesn't get any Federal money. It's just words, but too many people think that things "magically" appear in their states with no thought to what is actually happening. > 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. Agreed. But how many times does it take cousin Clem having an accident with a gun before you decide it's safer to just not be around him? > Am I missing something? Yes, it won't be a vote that triggers CalExit--Californians really don't want to leave, by and large. It will the Feds showing up and shooting some white people for <reasons> and then having a ham-fisted response that causes it. If it were anyone other than Trump in the White House, I wouldn't worry about this happening. Sadly, this bunch look more than incompetent enough to trigger it.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> What exactly would be the advantage of Calexit? Plenty, for Russia. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/why-russia-loves-the-idea-of-california-seceding-214632 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/why-russia-lo... > The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states consider following California. Not really, because California attempting to secede would guarantee civil war, both within California (which, has a very large and disproportionately well armed minority that would rather be governed by the current federal majority than the current state majority) and between California and the Feds (the latter spurred by the former if it didn't happen for other reasons), and chances can't increase beyond 100%.
- gremlinsinc 10y ago
  Can't California just pass a law that protects all it's citizens and companies from any repercussions of not-paying federal income taxes...i.e. -- stay part of the union, but without the taxation, because nobody in California will enforce tax evasion at the federal level?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    No, it can't. California could choose not to assist the Federal government (anti-commandeering doctrine), but cannot Constitutionally prevent federal officers from enforcing federal tax law by both civil and criminal process (supremacy clause).
    - gremlinsinc 10y ago
      Do federal tax collectors/auditors ever use local police to bring people to justice over tax evasion ? The state government could simply not offer any such support, and require the feds to do everything on their own. I wonder if they could create a law that wouldn't allow extradition out of California for said trials unless approved by the governor.

by tabeth 10y ago

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
  The key words being "in a working democracy". I think the US has poor democracy. The electoral college means my vote here in California doesn't matter (I typically don't participate in the charade of the presidential election although I do vote in other races, mostly state wide). Same for a Texan's vote. I think Brexit was stupid so I'm hesitant to support Calexit, but I think the unfair system definitely fuels the flames. I have to admit it would be nice to live in a country where my vote would count no matter where in the country I'm from.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > key words being "in a working democracy" We don't have a great democracy. But it's a democracy. (If you can realistically discuss seceding, you're in a free country.) Perhaps the fatal flaw of democracies is their No True Scotsman [1] tendency. If every democracy can tear itself apart when some fraction of it feels it is no longer a democracy, and if that threshold is too low, then non-democracies will outperform the democracies. (I do not believe this is the case.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    - gremlinsinc 10y ago
      Actually it's a republic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeTbDdl7XiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeTbDdl7XiE
    - Old_Thrashbarg 10y ago
      > We don't have a great democracy. But it's a democracy. "Democracy" is not binary. You can embody the idea of "democracy" to various degrees. For example, the US is certainly _more_ of a democracy now that African Americans and women can vote. In the future, it may become even more of a democracy if every adult can cast a meaningful vote regardless of what state they're resident in. > (If you can realistically discuss seceding, you're in a free country.) I'm not sure this has anything to do with democracy. Canada peacefully seceded from the [non-democractic] Commonwealth in 1867.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Dan_Nguyen 10y ago

Nope. Those are my thoughts exactly. The obvious implication of CalExit to me is civil war. Like you I definitely think a state leaving undermines the very nature of the United States. Political motivations aside, the idea of California leaving bears many similarities to South Carolina during the 1800s, and we know how quickly that turned into war. For me it's an amusing thought to entertain as a form of escapism but I really hope people aren't taking this seriously. It'd be disastrous for both the country and California.

humanrebar 10y ago
> ...the idea of California leaving bears many similarities to South Carolina during the 1800s, and we know how quickly that turned into war. 1. Asking people ignore slavery's contributions to the civil war is not reasonable. 2. Many states, California included to some degree, feel the very nature of the United States has been slowly eroding for some time with no real checks on that erosion. There will be a tipping point eventually. Peaceful secessions (with the option to re-enter the union if it's mutually agreed upon) seem like a good way for states to enforce the principles of federalism, especially since the national government, Supreme Court included, seem disinterested in that goal. Real violence seems the most likely when people feel wronged, unheard, and that they have no reasonable and peaceful way to address the issues. Keeping people trapped in a country they feel doesn't represent them seems like a recipe for violence, not a way to preserve the peace.
- Dan_Nguyen 10y ago
  1. Even if you take slavery into account, I see a lot of similarities between the Civil War and CalExit. For the southern states, many wanted to keep slavery for economic reasons. It was very cheap labor, and banning slavery would have meant less money for Southern states imposed on them by outsiders who did not live their societies or work their jobs. I see the same parallels here with CalExit. Even on this thread, people bring up how California unfairly pays more net to the federal government while red states take more federal resources. CalExit doesn't have the (IMO) moral reprehension of slavery, but from my perspective I see people upset that outsiders who don't share our lives and views are dictating our bottom line. 2. I highly doubt that the federal government would let any state undergo peaceful secession. A secession by its nature is a threat to the United States. Allowing states to leave will mean the states aren't united. Furthermore, it won't just be California. Off the top of my head, states like Washington, Oregon, and New York are generally as unhappy as California in with the state of our government, and allowing one state to leave will open the floodgates for other states. This to me means the obvious consequence is violence erupts if we attempt to secede, even with peaceful intentions at first. As another user on this thread stated, California will not win an armed conflict. The US military is much stronger than our California National Guard. I understand your political sentiments, and I do agree that the current state of national politics is a major issue. However, I don't see a peaceful CalExit as either practical or realistic.

dap 10y ago

I think you're right about all that, and that it's even worse than that. With what military would the new California defend itself? What would stop the United States-sans-California from immediately annexing California as a territory, putting things in the exact same situation as now, but without any of the self-determination afforded by being a state? I don't know how realistic that is, but it's hard to reason about the hypothetical world where this proposal succeeds, and it seems like a serious risk. Escape is not the solution. All it does is leave the world's most powerful country in the control of the people you disagreed so strongly with that you wanted to leave.

warlox 10y ago
Then again, if all the blue states left, the remaining country would no longer be the most powerful country.
- Dan_Nguyen 10y ago
  Maybe not, but the remaining country can still severely harm California. Additionally I wouldn't assume that California-based military will support CalExit. I lived in San Diego and spent a lot of time with active duty sailors + marines down there when I attended Community College. They were from all over the country, and the vast majority were from red states. I befriended active duty military from Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Carolina. Conversely, despite being a military city I only came across two people from California. What I'm getting at is in the event of civil war I can't see the majority of armed forces in California supporting CalExit.
toast0 10y ago
Maybe the California national guard; although since it's federally funded, it may need to follow the money. The California State Military Reserve is a fully state agency, although it's much smaller, and it's potentially subject to command by the President as well.

humanrebar 10y ago

> This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy. I would suspect that the parties would realign and there would still be healthy political competition, eventually if not in the short term. > there are certain states that subsidize others This meme is true in some respects, but contains a limited perspective. California is a net contributor of money, but other states are net contributors of other things. Young American technologists, for example, move to the Bay Area. They're not born and trained there to move to the Kentucky technology scene, at least that's not the trend yet. The ranks of the military is disproportionately filled by young people from red states. California is a net importer of water. And so on.

warlox 10y ago

> 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? Yes, because it sends more to the federal government than it receives in subsidies.

pheldagryph 10y ago
Disagree. Statehood is an inherent subsidy, what with how interstate commerce is protected and the international peace maintained. Many Federal expenditures are not motivated by per-capita considerations, but rather foreign-strategic considerations. Federal tax income vs Federal spending is not the right way to value a state's membership in the Union, the costs of secession are. Is the United States as a whole greater than the sum of its parts?

Houshalter 10y ago

>Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy. I really don't think this is likely. People mention this about every demographic change. How if women didn't get the right to vote, republicans would have won every major election. Or if immigration continues at the current rate, republicans will never win again. But isn't it weird that the current demographics happen to be balanced almost perfectly between republicans and democrats? What's the probability of that happening by chance? If California left, the median voter would move a bit to the right, sure. But the parties would move to follow the median voter as they always have, and balance things out. Maybe the Republicans benefit in the short term. But after being in power long enough, there would be more voters wanting change than are satisfied with the status quo. Which always happens eventually. And the cyclical nature of our democracy would continue. And the trends and demographics of the US are moving left in the long term anyway. Removing California only delays that.

tabeth 10y ago
You make an excellent point, however I think the main difference between this compared to 15th or 19th amendments is that this wouldn't apply to all of the states and roughly equal amounts.

bsder 10y ago

> What exactly would be the advantage of Calexit? California would immediately have 30% more money due to not funding the red states. > 1. Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy. Not a great argument to the blue states. Blue states really wouldn't care as they would leave the red staters and their corrupt congressmen to wallow in penury without blue state money. > 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. The Civil War was won because the North had the population and the production. The blue states have the production and the population. The red states would not win if it came to civil war and, if things actually came to Calexit, it would be likely be CoastalExit. In addition, the armed services are now very much "Just In Time". If you shut down California, you're going to have a very difficult time resupplying and repairing your army. California can simply let your army grind to a halt while waiting you out. Logistics through hostile territory is EXCRUCIATINGLY expensive. The army couldn't secure Baghdad; they'll have no hope with LA or SF. Finally, Californians really don't begrudge helping the red states out. Honestly. What they begrudge is then getting stabbed in the back while doing so. I think that every Representative, Senator, and Governor from a "taker" state should have to make public request and obeisance to the representatives of "giver" states on national television right after the State of Union or their state doesn't get any Federal money. It's just words, but too many people think that things "magically" appear in their states with no thought to what is actually happening. > 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. Agreed. But how many times does it take cousin Clem having an accident with a gun before you decide it's safer to just not be around him? > Am I missing something? Yes, it won't be a vote that triggers CalExit--Californians really don't want to leave, by and large. It will the Feds showing up and shooting some white people for <reasons> and then having a ham-fisted response that causes it. If it were anyone other than Trump in the White House, I wouldn't worry about this happening. Sadly, this bunch look more than incompetent enough to trigger it.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> What exactly would be the advantage of Calexit? Plenty, for Russia. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/why-russia-loves-the-idea-of-california-seceding-214632 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/why-russia-lo... > The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states consider following California. Not really, because California attempting to secede would guarantee civil war, both within California (which, has a very large and disproportionately well armed minority that would rather be governed by the current federal majority than the current state majority) and between California and the Feds (the latter spurred by the former if it didn't happen for other reasons), and chances can't increase beyond 100%.

gremlinsinc 10y ago
Can't California just pass a law that protects all it's citizens and companies from any repercussions of not-paying federal income taxes...i.e. -- stay part of the union, but without the taxation, because nobody in California will enforce tax evasion at the federal level?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  No, it can't. California could choose not to assist the Federal government (anti-commandeering doctrine), but cannot Constitutionally prevent federal officers from enforcing federal tax law by both civil and criminal process (supremacy clause).
  - gremlinsinc 10y ago
    Do federal tax collectors/auditors ever use local police to bring people to justice over tax evasion ? The state government could simply not offer any such support, and require the feds to do everything on their own. I wonder if they could create a law that wouldn't allow extradition out of California for said trials unless approved by the governor.