BREAK UP: Will California splinter into 6 states? Voters, Congress could soon decide

6 states.....New north mexico,san bankrupt, shaky town, libby hill, plastic paradise, new clearing and east fukushima....sorry, could not stop myself..............

reply to post by TDawgRex


doubtful.. I do see Congress allowing it. This has been a topic in California off and on over the years. Mainly the same complaints a the Colorado counties who want to leave Colorado and form North Colorado.

If they want to splinter they need to move to Texas. They have the ability to divide into 5 smaller states without congressional approval (sovereign before a state).

All comes down to paying taxes and not getting anything back out of it because the money is going into large populated areas.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by darkbake

 

You know, it would be more feasible to extend the borders of Oregon down over the Norther part of California.

~Tenth

I was thinking about something like this - the current initiative seems to be slapped together without too much thought and analysis - although I found this.

The plan would also create a "marketplace" for governments, and voters in each county could pick and choose which state they wanted to be part of.

CNN Money

According to Wikipedia, 46% of Americans believe in a young Earth and 30% take the Bible literally.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I think it could happen if the "Blue" counties got sick of the "Red" counties for whatever reason. Though I don't see that happening. It's obvious that the "Red" counties are already there.

When you look at a electoral map of the US, on first glance you would think that the majority of US is Republican. But the rural areas are sparsely populated. Even without names, you can see where the cities are since they are blue for the most part. Very few exceptions.

Sparse populations equals less influence. That's just how it goes. Maybe if the farmers decide en masse to raise the price of their crops to exorbitant levels, then they would get some recognition. Though it wouldn't be in a good way.

Having read through the article and the posts the following can be stated:

The proposed break up of California may be what the state needs however; there are items that they would have to take into consideration, and a few points that are missed here.

While yes it would mean more senators, it would also mean fewer representatives in the house of reps. Each state is allotted by lay so many Representatives as determined by the census. So currently there are 53 such from the state of California. If it were to break up into 6 states, then that number would drop down. California would also lose the number of electoral votes it would get, so that number would drop down and no longer be the state that a person wanting to be president wants to have to focus on. So yes, it would get more senators, but lose much more in the House of Representatives. I can see a few states in Congress that would vote for such, as it would mean that they would gain far more than lose in the long run. And it would show the rest of the country what would happen if it were to break apart, as the lose of population would have far more drastic effects.

Then there is the debt that the state has incurred, that would have to be paid, and thus each new state would have to take financial responsibility for. It would have to figure out how to divide it up and thus it would need to be given to each of the new states. Just cause they break the state up, does not mean that they would not have to have a share of the burden for said debt.

There would be other issues that would also have to be looked at, such as the boundaries and how it would be divided, how the state laws and constitution of the state of California reads, and ultimately, the will of the people. For years there has been talk of dividing the state into 3 states, but nothing ever comes of it. While it may seem like a good idea, it seems more and more that it is unlikely, as it is a losing proposition on the part of the state breaking up, as it would mean that the aid and support it gets from the whole would be suddenly diminished and unless there is also plans to revitalize industry in the new states, they could find themselves a lot poorer for it, rather than enriched.

While it may seem appealing to a few, they still have to sell it to the whole, and the final question should be asked, is it the correct thing to do? Would it ultimately make a difference for the citizens in that state to suddenly be broken down by section and is there enough there to make it worthwhile for them to do such?

I think it may be a losing battle, but one that should prove to be interesting and an eye opener. Though the bigger picture may seem to be clouded and ultimately no so clear, and sometimes may be a bad thing down the line and in the immediate future for the different states themselves.

What I think that the main problem is, and this is far more everywhere, is that the population is tired of a government that is based on the idea being by, of and for the people, are starting to show that it is not, and that the will of the people is not being upheld in the halls of power. I believe that if more states did what Colorado just did, and start recalling elected officials for failing to uphold that will, that those elected would then be more inclined to listen to the will of the people. But far too often, and it has been demonstrated, the will of the people is often not the deciding factor, but the will of those who hold the money.

TDawgRex

Mr. Draper has shown that he is willing to put his money where his mouth is: He sank $20 million into Proposition 38, a 2000 initiative to create a state-funded private-school voucher system. That measure lost by 71 percent to 29 percent.

Asked how much he plans to spend on the initiative, Mr. Draper said “as little as possible, but I will make sure it gets on the ballot so that Californians have a chance to make this a reality.”

investor gives life to effort to split california

I actually think that this could be a good thing. Though i shudder to think of a state called"'Silicon Valley". That just smacks of people of wealth.

What say you denizons of ATS?

edit on 7-1-2014 by TDawgRex because: Just a ETA

edit on 1/7/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

Fat chance. Never going to happen and the article itself says that there's no chance of the vote passing.

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.

reply to post by TDawgRex


This idea has been around a long time in a lot of states.

So what's the plan for calling all the states new names?

All that will do is make six more states and then Puerto Rico becomes a state while the state of San Diego cedes back to Mexico. Eventually we will get to those 57 states that Obama has gone to. But then Texas follows with three more states, Oklahoma becomes independent, then Wyoming and other western states. Utah secedes and polygamy is allowed again.

I can see if this becomes a trend, Ohio will become the State of Cleveland and the State of Cincinnati. Yuppers in Michigan will finally become their own group. Oh the 100 plus states we will become, some going back to Mexico and some going to Canada.

Let's make it easy on ourselves and just stick with what we have. California isn't going anywhere, except maybe the Pacific if they ever have that humongous earthquake.

LeatherNLace
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?