3 Californias

[Greenman]

Ballot measure to split California into three states has qualified. Map of the new California's here.
https://www.google.com/search?q=3+c...AhVWCDQIHdASAzUQ9QEIPjAD#imgrc=2BHOU5XStHs26M:

It looks like it's set up so the 4 new senators would be democrats. Other than that, I can't come up with a reason for doing it.

 

[OutHouse]

Fine by me, never happen though

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Then they can secede. Call themselves the United States of California. Immediately becoming the country with the 5th largest economy in the world.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe they feel cheated having the same number of senators as Wyoming...

 

[IronWing]

 

[Vic]

Why would a billionaire Republican want 4 new Democrats in the Senate?

 

[SKORPI0]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/us/california-three-states-initiative-ballot/index.html

 

[esquared]

Pushed by the same dumbass who first wanted California split into 6 states.
http://time.com/9410/tim-draper-six-californias-proposal-qa/

 

[glenn1]

Fine by me, never happen though

Ditto

 

[imported_tajmahal]

They need to move the coastal portion of "California" up another 4 counties to include Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco and Marin Counties. That would make "Northern California and "Southern California" decent states.

 

[MrSquished]

well if this can make it to the ballot, why not 2 americas?

much better idea.

 

[umbrella39]

well if this can make it to the ballot, why not 2 americas?

much better idea.

Like that would ever happen. Who the hell would prop up all the red State welfare kings and queens THEN add on all the dregs pulling SSI disability in these Red States? We would still take care of our own like we always have whether they be hillbillies from red states voting against their best self interests or the Mom in Cleveland with 10 kids... Red America would be eating their own within 5 years. The gap between the haves and the have nots in Red America would be WAY too obvious to play the shell game any longer. Even toothless hicks catch on after a couple generations...
Who is going to pay for this wall btw?

 

[Zorba]

Then they can secede. Call themselves the United States of California. Immediately becoming the country with the 5th largest economy in the world.

This is just as delusional as the Texas people. One they would never be allowed to secede. Even if they were, the economy would tank when every bit of federal spending was suddenly removed from the state. All the military bases, all of the government funded aerospace, all of the government purchased computer equipment/software. And that is before the US actually played hardball and shutdown pipelines, electric transmission, water from out of state, etc.

 

[zerocool84]

This is just as delusional as the Texas people. One they would never be allowed to secede. Even if they were, the economy would tank when every bit of federal spending was suddenly removed from the state. All the military bases, all of the government funded aerospace, all of the government purchased computer equipment/software. And that is before the US actually played hardball and shutdown pipelines, electric transmission, water from out of state, etc.

That describes basically any state that would want to secede from the USA.

California is just too important of a state as a whole to the country.

 

[Greenman]

Maybe they feel cheated having the same number of senators as Wyoming...

That would only be people that don't understand the concept of a constitutional republic.

 

[ivwshane]

I'll pass

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

That would only be people that don't understand the concept of a constitutional republic.

I thought it was the electoral college that is supposed to protect you from the tyranny of the majority.

Silly Americans.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

This whole proposal is roughly the equivalent of Gerrymandering on the state level. The new "Southern California" would be a deep red state (and like most deep red states would be an impoverished wasteland), while the new "Northern California" would be much more purple on a state legislature level and possibly as a state on the whole (without the massive population center of Los Angeles, the Bay Area would have a much stronger counterbalance from the remainder of the northern counties).

Divided we fall, however. The major metropolitan areas cannot survive without the water from the more rural counties in the Sierras, but the rural counties would basically lose what little state funding they already have if the major economic engines of California were taken away from their tax base.

 

[Aegeon]

This whole proposal is roughly the equivalent of Gerrymandering on the state level. The new "Southern California" would be a deep red state (and like most deep red states would be an impoverished wasteland), while the new "Northern California" would be much more purple on a state legislature level and possibly as a state on the whole (without the massive population center of Los Angeles, the Bay Area would have a much stronger counterbalance from the remainder of the northern counties).

Uh, nope.

The new "Southern California" would have in fact still voted for Hillary in the last election (even Orange County and Fresno County went for Hillary in the last election.) It might be closer to a purple state, but it certainly would not be deep red. You're simply utterly mistaken on Northern California which would be if anything more liberal than California is now. Basically you have the Bay Area plus Sacramento in that hypothetical new state, and the rest of the population simply is not that much. (The really red counties in Northern California basically have virtually no people in them.) It actually is the Southern part of the state (and more populated inland areas not so far north) which is the comparatively more conservative part of the state when it comes to state wide issues or votes recently.

Its possible those supporting the measure had your kind of thoughts in mind when planning the split, but they clearly were not paying enough attention to recent California demographic and political realities if so.

 

[mindless1]

If we can add states it only stands to reason that we can subtract states.

Cali is gone, everyone is deported, we reclaim it as a state. We could name it Trump. lololololol

 

[sdifox]

That would only be people that don't understand the concept of a constitutional republic.

What? EC is the problem, not constitutional republic.

 

[boomerang]

well if this can make it to the ballot, why not 2 americas?

much better idea.

Quit with the dreaming. The sooner you put this country in your rear view mirror the better off you'll be.

 

[fskimospy]

This is just as delusional as the Texas people. One they would never be allowed to secede. Even if they were, the economy would tank when every bit of federal spending was suddenly removed from the state. All the military bases, all of the government funded aerospace, all of the government purchased computer equipment/software. And that is before the US actually played hardball and shutdown pipelines, electric transmission, water from out of state, etc.

While I agree that California seceding would not happen removing federal spending would be a net positive for California because along with the removal of federal spending you have the removal of federal taxes. California is a net donor of federal taxes so they would come out ahead.

As to whether or not the remaining United States would try and sabotage their economy, who knows?

 

[fskimospy]

That would only be people that don't understand the concept of a constitutional republic.

Whether or not the US is a constitutional republic has zero to do with the apportionment of senators. We could double California’s number of senators or abolish the senate entirely and still be a constitutional republic both ways.

 

[Greenman]

nm