Proposed California Split

[Zymologist]

California is being considered for a split into 6 smaller states. The reasoning, reportedly, is "with 38 million people, California is too big and diverse to properly represent all of its residents".

Source

Thoughts?

[Outis]

California is being considered for a split into 6 smaller states. The reasoning, reportedly, is "with 38 million people, California is too big and diverse to properly represent all of its residents".

Source

Thoughts?

Doubtful that it will happen. Too many with vested interests in Sacramento, and too many with vested interests in DC.

[Juvenal]

California is being considered for a split into 6 smaller states. The reasoning, reportedly, is "with 38 million people, California is too big and diverse to properly represent all of its residents".

Source

Thoughts?

"Vast parts of our state are poorly served by a representative government dominated by a large number of elected representatives from a small part of our state, both geographically and economically," the plan says.

Hmm, another gazillion-aire who's upset he doesn't get more votes for being rich.

I don't think I've got a hanky big enough to blow that nose.

As ever, Jesse

[KingsGambit]

So we would have 110 Senators instead of 100? I don't see this happening.

[supton]

Seems unlikely to happen, but it does make some sense. My understanding is that northern CA is very different than southern CA.

[rogue06]

Seems unlikely to happen, but it does make some sense. My understanding is that northern CA is very different than southern CA.

And northern New York is very different than New York City. The panhandle of Florida is very different than southern Florida. The upper peninsula of Michigan is very different from the Detroit area. Northern Virginia is very different from southern Virginia. Eastern Pennsylvania is very different from western Pennsylvania. And as CP has often noted, Austin Texas is very different from the rest of Texas. Perhaps we should go from 50 states (or as some think, 57) to a hundred or more.

[supton]

Fair enough, that complaint always comes up in various states. But CA is about the only one I've heard it multiple times, and I don't live anywhere near that state.

Personally I'd solve it by leave CA, and then not caring what they do. I'm not quite as far away as I can get, and even still that state manages to bug me.

[Darth Executor]

Any potential split would be hijacked by both parties to ensure liberals come out ahead so no thanks.

[Epoetker]

California's problems have nothing to do with regional governance and everything to do with demographic overrun and the concentration of its dependent population in the cities. Think less of a pie that needs to be sliced than some zits that need to be popped (or tumors needing excision, if the first seems too cavalier for you.)

[Carrikature]

And northern New York is very different than New York City. The panhandle of Florida is very different than southern Florida. The upper peninsula of Michigan is very different from the Detroit area. Northern Virginia is very different from southern Virginia. Eastern Pennsylvania is very different from western Pennsylvania. And as CP has often noted, Austin Texas is very different from the rest of Texas. Perhaps we should go from 50 states (or as some think, 57) to a hundred or more.

If memory serves, the original states were granted the right to create constitutions once a general minimum population density was achieved. There have been states formed out of existing states. It's not prima facie an invalid concept.

That said, it wouldn't help. Adding more people to the debate only lowers the likelihood that any one person gets heard.

[Epoetker]

Adding more people to the debate only lowers the likelihood that any one person gets heard.

That's the idea. (Behind mass immigration, certainly.)

[One Bad Pig]

There have been states formed out of existing states. It's not prima facie an invalid concept.

The only two I can call to mind are Maine and West Virginia. I don't recall the territory of Maine being considered part of the state of Massachusetts, but I could be wrong about that. West Virginia was a special case prompted by the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression.

[Outis]

If memory serves, the original states were granted the right to create constitutions once a general minimum population density was achieved. There have been states formed out of existing states. It's not prima facie an invalid concept.

Population density has never been a threshold test, and unless I am mistaken, each and every territory was required to have a working government in place (with a constitution) before it was allowed to petition Congress.

That said, it wouldn't help. Adding more people to the debate only lowers the likelihood that any one person gets heard.

On the state level, they are removing people from the debate.

[Carrikature]

The only two I can call to mind are Maine and West Virginia. I don't recall the territory of Maine being considered part of the state of Massachusetts, but I could be wrong about that. West Virginia was a special case prompted by the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression.

Maine was part of Massachusetts originally, yes. Kentucky and Tennessee are two others. I didn't say there were a lot, only that the precedent existed.

Population density has never been a threshold test, and unless I am mistaken, each and every territory was required to have a working government in place (with a constitution) before it was allowed to petition Congress.

It's been many years since I was taught that portion, and I forget. The territory had to show the federal government that the populace wanted its own statehood, after which a state constitution would be written and ratified.

On the state level, they are removing people from the debate.

Only after a fashion. Yes, you remove certain people, but the districts themselves would be redrawn. I'm not convinced the number of people would actually be less.

[Outis]

It's been many years since I was taught that portion, and I forget. The territory had to show the federal government that the populace wanted its own statehood, after which a state constitution would be written and ratified.

I looked into this topic when the "secession petitions" started going around after the 2012 election. (Talk about political bloviating! ) You've got it a little backwards: the territory had to have a government in place, and the government of the territory has to petition Congress to join the Union. The same is true of joining or subdividing states: the petitioning state must petition Congress. West Virginia snuck by because at that time, they were the only operating territory in Virginia that was not in a state of insurrection.

Only after a fashion. Yes, you remove certain people, but the districts themselves would be redrawn. I'm not convinced the number of people would actually be less.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The goal of this plan is to break one state into six states, each having its own separate state government. Yes, each separate state government would be dealing with less people.

A more informal analysis? The folks in the rich parts of the states don't want their state tax dollars going to other parts of the state.