7 ms·

California 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

California 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 ago
That'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 ago
  If 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 ago
  The 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 ago
Breaking up the state will provide better democratic representation.
- belluchan 13y ago
  I'm not sure how that couldn't be an argument to break up all the large states. It would just turn the senate into another house of representatives. And it's a weird way to fix the senate if you wanted it to be fixed. You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all. You could ask for more senators. And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas. All of these solutions are about as likely to pass: nil chance. And I'll fight tooth and nail to keep help keep this state together.
  - Xdes 13y ago
    >I'm not sure how that couldn't be an argument to break up all the large states It might be worth considering some kind of population density clause for when the number of constituents to representatives reaches a ridiculous value. >You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all. This kind of a fix isn't pragmatic and will have a bigger disruption than breaking up one state. It's not like the geography is going to change because the lines are redrawn. >And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas. Have you considered whether other residents of the state share your view? Maybe the larger metropolitan areas are alright keeping around the sparser rural areas, but not the inverse?
- someguyonhn 13y ago
  Breaking up the state might provide more representation on the federal level. I disagree that it would be better. Also, I don't know if anyone has considered this but, nothing is stopping California from creating six separate localities with their own "governors" and laws under the California umbrella (sort of like mini states within the state).
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Adopting a sane electoral system (i.e., not FPTP in single-member districts) will do that. Breaking the state up will not in any significant way do that.
carsongross 13y ago
Yes. We must preserve diversity... by crushing it under a single government. Power to the people... the people in Sacramento, am I right? Keep on trying to control the frame ("weird rich kids", "embarrassment", "hearts and minds"). We've reached peak centralization. The future is decentralization, subsidiary, and localized control.
- someguyonhn 13y ago
  Everyone already has a lot of localized control. That's how America, and most individualized states, are set up. I assume by control you mean representation. Are you arguing that the representation within the state isn't good enough? If so there are other avenues to fix that problem, such as changing the state legislature where most of the laws that affect the day to day lives of Californians come from, to be more representative. I can't see how creating five new states solves any control or representation problem.
- belluchan 13y ago
  I'm not sure you actually made a cogent argument I can respond to. The future is whatever we make it to be, and I don't like your vision of the future, and you aren't very good at convincing me to see the merits of what you want. What you want seems to be standard troglodyte big government is bad. This state has its many issues, but it also has many pluses and ruining its identity so you can build your libertarian dream state has already been tried in New Hampshire. It didn't work out.
  - carsongross 13y ago
    You are confusing localism, self-determination and subsidiary with libertarianism. Read more.
abdophoto 13y ago
Couldn't agree more. Well said.
codereflection 13y ago
As someone who grew up in California, and lived there for a total of 31 years, I couldn't agree more.
maxerickson 13y ago
Do you think it impossible for such a change to result in the same regional California but more functional government? I've been places where township governments were basically just an extra layer underneath the county (providing little more than redundant obstruction). I can imagine voices in these townships reaching for similar arguments about how beautiful the township is and how change is bad.

oinksoft 13y ago

That'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 ago
If 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 ago
The 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 ago

Breaking up the state will provide better democratic representation.

belluchan 13y ago
I'm not sure how that couldn't be an argument to break up all the large states. It would just turn the senate into another house of representatives. And it's a weird way to fix the senate if you wanted it to be fixed. You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all. You could ask for more senators. And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas. All of these solutions are about as likely to pass: nil chance. And I'll fight tooth and nail to keep help keep this state together.
- Xdes 13y ago
  >I'm not sure how that couldn't be an argument to break up all the large states It might be worth considering some kind of population density clause for when the number of constituents to representatives reaches a ridiculous value. >You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all. This kind of a fix isn't pragmatic and will have a bigger disruption than breaking up one state. It's not like the geography is going to change because the lines are redrawn. >And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas. Have you considered whether other residents of the state share your view? Maybe the larger metropolitan areas are alright keeping around the sparser rural areas, but not the inverse?
someguyonhn 13y ago
Breaking up the state might provide more representation on the federal level. I disagree that it would be better. Also, I don't know if anyone has considered this but, nothing is stopping California from creating six separate localities with their own "governors" and laws under the California umbrella (sort of like mini states within the state).
dragonwriter 13y ago
Adopting a sane electoral system (i.e., not FPTP in single-member districts) will do that. Breaking the state up will not in any significant way do that.

carsongross 13y ago

Yes. We must preserve diversity... by crushing it under a single government. Power to the people... the people in Sacramento, am I right? Keep on trying to control the frame ("weird rich kids", "embarrassment", "hearts and minds"). We've reached peak centralization. The future is decentralization, subsidiary, and localized control.

someguyonhn 13y ago
Everyone already has a lot of localized control. That's how America, and most individualized states, are set up. I assume by control you mean representation. Are you arguing that the representation within the state isn't good enough? If so there are other avenues to fix that problem, such as changing the state legislature where most of the laws that affect the day to day lives of Californians come from, to be more representative. I can't see how creating five new states solves any control or representation problem.
belluchan 13y ago
I'm not sure you actually made a cogent argument I can respond to. The future is whatever we make it to be, and I don't like your vision of the future, and you aren't very good at convincing me to see the merits of what you want. What you want seems to be standard troglodyte big government is bad. This state has its many issues, but it also has many pluses and ruining its identity so you can build your libertarian dream state has already been tried in New Hampshire. It didn't work out.
- carsongross 13y ago
  You are confusing localism, self-determination and subsidiary with libertarianism. Read more.

abdophoto 13y ago

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

codereflection 13y ago

As someone who grew up in California, and lived there for a total of 31 years, I couldn't agree more.

maxerickson 13y ago

Do you think it impossible for such a change to result in the same regional California but more functional government? I've been places where township governments were basically just an extra layer underneath the county (providing little more than redundant obstruction). I can imagine voices in these townships reaching for similar arguments about how beautiful the township is and how change is bad.