In no way is this a good thing. Right now, California has 2 Senators. If they split into 6 states, that same population suddenly has 12 Senators. The
same applies for Colorado, Texas and the other 47 states.
I know I'm sort of Necro'ing this thread, but I don't feel like creating a completely new one. This 'new' measure I have just recently
discovered, but it appears to be all over the news right now, a google search finds several news articles within the last week or so, so I'm
wondering if it has been given another breath of life.
Anyway, onto my reply. I do see your point here. Dividing this state up would give "California" "10 new Senators", but consider this:
Right now California as a whole has 2 heavily Liberal Senators. Let's start with Los Angeles County. If the 2012 Presidential Election is any
indicator, Los Angeles County alone voted 70% Obama, 70% of 4.5million voters vote for Democrats. Doing a quick math check says 3.15million ish voters
are likely going to vote for Democratic Senators as well.
Now, Moving onto the Next Liberal Bastion of the San Francisco Bay Area (according to Wikipedia). With a voter population of around 3.5million , and
using San Fran's 83% vote for the 2012 election, we will average that out to a very conservative 70%, assuming the surrounding areas are quite a bit
more conservative. We still get 2.45million votes for Democrats (and by proxy, Liberals).
Now, seeing as how I don't want to spend all night typing up the several other areas, I assume you get my picture. With Just what I have given, that
is already nearly 6 million votes that go towards Democrats/Liberals, out of the State's nearly 13 million registered voting population. This is 2
Geographic areas out of the entire state that pretty much dictate the State's election choices. How is that fair to the more rural people, or
Conservative types in the state who have little interest in what the big cities problems are.
Basically what I am saying is Rural and Conservative types are ridiculously under represented in this state which has become to large to govern
fairly. Folks in LA and Malibu's big worries are Property taxes and keeping their air clean, which is not a problem for say, Northern California. But
since LA is the main population hub that is what the state worries about. Folks up north and in central California worry about Water Rights and
Drought, no concern of LA. I could go on, but hopefully this gives you all somewhat of an idea of what I am talking about. (If only I could physically
SPEAK this to you all!)
I know alot of my fellow Conservatives are skeptical because doing this would give "California" 10 more Seats in the Senate, agreeably, a dangerous
and unwise move. However, consider this. What I wrote above was to illustrate how 2 small areas of the state influence the entire States' lean just
because those people like to live shoulder to shoulder. However, as you move inland in California it becomes markedly more Conservative. I see this as
at the least, final fair representation of those people who's views and concerns have been ignored by the big city folks for years, They would be
able to finally elect their own leaders who share their concerns instead of having to choose between LA politicians who want to ban guns or the
Republican who wants Abortion to be illegal. People in CENTRAL CALIFORNIA would vote for a CENTRAL CALIFORNIA politician (at the "State" and
"Federal" level instead of again, having to choose between the 'lesser' of two evils'.
Ok, I'm done, hopefully I haven't ranted to much, and have gotten my point across. What say you all? Is there something in the bigger picture I'm
not seeing, or is their some merit to what I have said?