5 ms·

12 Senators, for a start.

by jaibot 13y ago

rtkwe 13y ago
Which would bring them closer into line with the representation, in terms of electoral and Congressional representation, people in smaller states get.
notacoward 13y ago
Which 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 ago
    There 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 ago
In 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.)

12 Senators, for a start.

by jaibot 13y ago

12 Senators, for a start.

rtkwe 13y ago

Which would bring them closer into line with the representation, in terms of electoral and Congressional representation, people in smaller states get.

notacoward 13y ago

Which 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 ago
  There 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 ago

In 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.)