7 ms·
SixCalifornias - initiative to create six states
- Sharlin 13y agoWhy?
- jaibot 13y ago12 Senators, for a start.
- rtkwe 13y agoWhich would bring them closer into line with the representation, in terms of electoral and Congressional representation, people in smaller states get.
- notacoward 13y agoWhich is exactly why it will never happen. Those over-represented tiny states will oppose it by every means, fair or foul, and there's simply no way that anyone else will find the change desirable enough to join the fight on California's side.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Those over-represented tiny red states will oppose it by every means I'm not sure why they would oppose replacing one giant Democratic-majority state with 6 states that aren't mostly Democratic-majority -- it improves the Republican structural position in the Senate and Presidential elections.
- notacoward 13y agoThere might be a temptation for tiny red states to support the move as a way to improve the Republican position, but... (a) Such an advantage might be transitory. Who's to say those new states will remain red, especially when they're submitted to a new level of political targeting that they never were when the state outcome was dominated by urban blue-ness? Even those tiny-state folks can recognize a two edged sword for what it is. (b) There are small blue states too. (c) Both effects are likely to be outweighed by issues that have nothing to do with red vs. blue. The over-represented states want to stay that way, no matter which parties are involved. Also, don't downvote just because you disagree.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Such an advantage might be transitory. Well, yeah. Some of us still remember that California was a Republican solid state in national politics not too long ago. > Who's to say those new states will remain red, especially when they're submitted to a new level of political targeting that the state outcome was dominated by urban blue-ness? I can't understand what the "especially..." part of this is trying to communicate. It sounds like there is an interesting thought behind it, but I can't penetrate the way it is phrased to get to the meaning. > There are small blue states too. And big states, blue and red, that have powerful interests that like them being big (as well as powerful interests that don't, too be sure) which will seek to avoid balkanization getting established as a thing. > Both effects are likely to be outweighed by issues that have nothing to do with red vs. blue. The over-represented states want to stay that way, no matter which parties are involved. I think that claiming that this will be the dominant effect understates the degree to which national politics in the US is driven by tribal partisanship, but certainly partisanship wouldn't be the only factor influencing it.
- vladd 13y agoIn Switzerland, some cantons (their equivalent of a state) decided to split. Before they had 2 votes each in the Council of States; after the split, each half-canton got 1 vote each - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Half-cantons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Half-can... . It would be fair to split California into 2 and then each half would get 1 senator. Otherwise you might try to play the population card, but other states would need to approve (or could veto) the process.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 13y ago> It would be fair to split California into 2 and then each half would get 1 senator. Er, even split into 6 states with two senators, California would be underrepresented compared to many other states. Plus, the one thing that the Constitution expressly prohibits doing even by Constitutional amendment is changing the distribution of Senators to something where states would not have equal representation. (You can take away all the power of the Senate by Constitutional amendment, but you can't stop it from representing the states equally.)
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoElaborate false flag operation to destroy Silicon Valley, of course. At least, that's what would likely happen if this ever passed. Which it probably won't.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Why? Create more influence points for business to target, and make it more geographically convenient to play them against each other. Also, increase the proportion of Republican-majority states, which helps tip the balance of the federal government further to the Right by increasing the structural advantage for Republicans in the Senate and in Presidential elections.
- Glyptodon 13y agoI completely agree that California should be broken in to n states, where 2 <= n <= 8. However, I, and I suspect most people, would draw the lines differently. In fact, I think most people will agree with the concept of breaking CA into multiple states, but at the same time I think most Californians would rather stay as one state than create new states with boundaries that annoy them.
- belluchan 13y agoCalifornia is a beautiful state and I never want to see it broken up. Joshua Trees, Lake Tahoe, the coast of Mendocino, in fact all of Highway 1, Alpine, Torrey Pines, Russia River, the rocky hills of North County San Diego, Red Woods and Big Sur, San Francisco, Balboa Park, White Sands, Death Valley, and on and on. The many missions. The many universities. Between Hollywood and Silicon Valley, California touches more minds and hearts than any other place in the world. This state is amazing, so diverse and rich in culture. This six state initiative is such an embarrassment. People that advocate something like this are so out of touch with reality. The New York Times brought this up when they were referring to the weird rich kids that live in the bay area. I'd support California becoming it's own sovereign state before I'd support breaking it up.
- oinksoft 13y agoThat's all this is, a thinly veiled attempt at keeping tax revenues in the Valley. And the plan is totally impractical given how the state manages its water supply; questions of water supply will keep the state united (unless the northern parts were to dry up in coming decades).
- natrius 13y agoIf some of the split states will have money but others will have water, that sounds like a problem trade was invented to solve.
- protomyth 13y agoThe only real benefit I see with the plan is forcing some of the water issues. It would be nice to see some desalination plants pop up to handle the costal city water so the agriculture can be preserved.
- Xdes 13y agoBreaking up the state will provide better democratic representation.
- belluchan 13y ago
- smtddr 13y agoI already debated this before... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940199 I hope this doesn't pass because I know how the lines will be drawn. The rich, privileged will be grouped together and will take advantage of the poor.
- javert 13y agoThe poor have nothing for the rich and privileged to take advantage of. It can only ever happen in the other direction.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 13y agoSo, labor is a new concept to you?
- logfromblammo 13y agoWell, there is probably a greater cultural gap between San Francisco and Los Angeles than exists between Fargo and Little Rock. And I do have a preference for smaller and more responsive polities. But with my foil hat on, I realize that this is a play by non-Californians to manipulate national politics at the expense of the states. I'll only support it if they do California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New York at the same time.
- psuter 13y agoI find the idea that political and cultural boundaries should align to be a very sad and unimaginative one. (Not suggesting you hold an opposite view.)
- sp332 13y agoHow else could you do it? Tax only the people in favor of infrastructure improvements and prevent everyone else from using them? Only arrest people using recreational drugs if they voted against legalization?
- someguyonhn 13y agoYou could do it the way it is done now. Geographically.
- sp332 13y agoWhat does geography have to do with good government?
- someguyonhn 13y agoGeography has everything to do with government. Where you are geographically determines how you are governed and who governs you. psuter said, "I find the idea that political and cultural boundaries should align to be a very sad and unimaginative one." Which I took to mean that psuter believes realigning CA along cultural or political boundaries (like saying, "republicans over here, democrats over there") is very sad and unimaginative. To which you responded "How else could you do it? Tax only the people in favor of infrastructure improvements and prevent everyone else from using them? Only arrest people using recreational drugs if they voted against legalization?" Which is why I tried to answer your question "How else could you do it?" by pointing out another way it can be done is, you keep things the way they are now meaning, you arrest, tax, and govern everyone equally depending on where they are standing (some things being illegal in some jurisdictions and not in others). It seems like there's some sort of breakdown in understanding between the two of us here.
- someguyonhn 13y agoI find it really odd that anyone would actually think something like this would work. Firstly, California would have to agree to break itself into 6 states. Even if that happened, those six states, which as far as America is concerned are still all part of California, would then need to convince Congress (which are the representatives of the rest of the country with a disproportionate representation of tiny states) to allow them to join the Union. Asking Congress to let 5 extra states join the Union is pretty much asking every state if it's cool that California gets 10 new Senators and 5 new Congressman. It seems odd that anyone would think Congress would be okay with that, especially when it doesn't seem to benefit the country at all. I also think it's funny that they've hired a PR firm[1] that handles "luxury hotels and resorts"[2], and "Luxury Real Estate Developments and Private Residence Clubs"[2] to contact for information. I can't think of any successful, attempting to be grassroots movement, created to try to improve the lives of others, that hired a PR firm from the start. [1] - The for press inquiries link at the bottom of their landing page [2] - The PR company's clients section http://www.seahorsepr.com/clients/clients.htm http://www.seahorsepr.com/clients/clients.htm
- krupan 13y agoI grew up in Washington state and there were periodic calls to divide it vertically down the middle so that those in the (less populous) eastern (largely Republican) half of the state could be more independent of the (more populous, largely Democrat) western half of the state. The kicker was the proposed name for the new state: Lincoln.
- ds9 13y agoTo clarify, under that proposal, the "new" state (Lincoln) would be the eastern one and the western one would be still called Washington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_%28proposed_Northwestern_state%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_%28proposed_Northweste...
- lurkinggrue 13y agoThis is such a bad idea! Water rights anyone?
- dragonwriter 13y agoYeah, that's one area where this would be the opposite of local control, as it would essentially federalize the California water issues that aren't already federal (since interstate compacts must be approved by Congress.)
- cobolorum 13y agoITT: people who believe there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoI could see (but not really support) a reasonable argument for making a North California & South California. It is a pretty big land mass with a large population. But I think 6 is overkill.