4 ms·
> It’s actually not a bad idea. The rural interior has way different needs than the coastal areas. The biggest impact of a new state isn't on the local area th
by lev99 8y ago
> It’s actually not a bad idea. The rural interior has way different needs than the coastal areas.
The biggest impact of a new state isn't on the local area that gains a new governor but on the national legislative branch. It creates two new senators and changes the house of representatives adjusting the political balance of the entire nation.
- rectang 8y agoThe three-way split produces 4 new Senators, 2 which would likely be Democrats and 2 which would likely be Republican. That's a wash. California is not currently gerrymandered as far as house seats. That could change for any the three new states. The biggest change would actually be the electoral college. Currently California is winner-take-all and reliably blue. If they split it without splitting another large state like Texas, that compounds the current Republican advantage and makes it even easier for a Republican president to be elected while losing the popular vote. In other words, Draper's ballot initiative is a gerrymander which benefits Republicans. And that's one reason it's going nowhere.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoIf all those new states go blue, however, republicans lose out on the two extra electoral votes per state. I don’t think republicans really like this either, even SoCal is in the process of going blue in the near term.