3 ms·
Because this is nothing more than attempt to add 4 more Senators that have a chance of being won by Republicans. It's the same reason why "Southern California"
by adestefan 8y ago
Because this is nothing more than attempt to add 4 more Senators that have a chance of being won by Republicans. It's the same reason why "Southern California" includes OC.
- neonIcon 8y agoThat's interesting, as I see it as an attempt to do the opposite and add more democrat seats. "Southern California" is realistically the only one of the three with the possibility of going red. If you were to remove San Francisco from "Northern California" and place it back in "California" then I could see it possibly going red at that point.
- LyndsySimon 8y agoThat doesn't make sense... This would add a net of four more Senators, which only might go Republican. Considering that California is generally considered solidly blue as it stands, this would almost certainly result in the balance shifting toward the Democrats in the Senate.
- wang_li 8y agoParts of California are reliably red. If you split them into their own state, their Senators, Representatives, and electoral votes would likely go red.
- LyndsySimon 8y agoI totally get that - I'm very interested in gun rights, and have been at least cursorily aware of the issues in getting carry permits in various California jurisdictions. My point is that the way the state is divided in this proposal all but guarantees that all three will be blue.
- greesil 8y agoSo it's essentially gerrymandering via the ballot box. Great.
- lostcolony 8y agoActually, it'd be more effective on the presidential election. Right now the electoral college votes in CA are basically guaranteed Democrat votes. This would break that, affording at least 1/3rd of them to Republicans. That's huge, and would likely ensure a Republican president for decades.
- Gargoyle 8y agoIt's basically an offer to trade a net +2 Dem. senators for some Rep. electoral votes.