- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?
Why or why not? What would be the pros and cons each way?
I was thinking secession! :2wave:
Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?
Why or why not? What would be the pros and cons each way?
Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?
Why or why not? What would be the pros and cons each way?
I was thinking secession! :2wave:
I was thinking secession! :2wave:
Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?
Why or why not? What would be the pros and cons each way?
I was thinking secession! :2wave:
In principal, it's a viable idea and would potentially have numerous advantages. The negotiations with the other states could be onerous, though.
I moved out a little over 10 years ago, but I was born and raised and lived 40+ years there, so I do have something of a "home" perspective.As a 5th generation Californian, my vote is No.
There is no way to properly split California up. It's wall to wall people around the population centers, and then wide open spaces that make up the majority of it's land.
I think it's best to let the people who have created this "modern" California suffer the consequences of their dependence, and be left with nowhere to go when the golden goose in Sacramento turns back into the leech filled cesspool their votes created.
I cannot think of why it would be particularly desirable to do, nor why you would stop with California. I mean, why not Texas, Florida and California if the issue is population? If land area is the issue, then why not Alaska and Texas at least, both of which are larger than California?
Politically it is not viable, and I can see no reason to do it, so I come back to why would you?
I moved out a little over 10 years ago, but I was born and raised and lived 40+ years there, so I do have something of a "home" perspective.
View attachment 67217888
If I were to split into three states I'd do something like this above. If two, I'd keep the same southerly east-west line. (I do realize I am splitting San Bernadino County.)
The primary reason "for" splitting is that southern and northern are, essentially, two different worlds. Neither one identifies with the other, or really respects the other. The mountains between Los Angeles and the central valley literally divides the state and only fosters the cultural separation.
A benefit to Californians would be expanded representation in the Senate. As it is now, California' Senate representation is watered down. Another benefit to that would be getting Senate representation that is more likely to be actually representative of the constituency, especially if the 3 state option were done, and the rural areas not overwhelmed by the larger population centers. This, of course, would be a big reason why other states would fight a split.
As a general rule, smaller government is better, or at least more responsive, government. In theory, at least. Split into like areas and state government would be better situated to handle the needs and concerns of their areas.
Water, Ah, water. The issue that really gets people worked up. I don't have a link handy, but I have read that northern California would rarely suffer water shortages even in periods of drought if it didn't have to send so much water south. A split would give the north more say in water distribution, though the existing contracts would probably still stand.
There's some thoughts. More positive than negative.
If the 3 state option were done, I don't think the central valley & northern portion would automatically be solid Dem. That's actually the primary reason I favor the 3 state option, so those people can feel some hope of representation, also.If such a split were to occur, your grid line would one to consider.
However, over the last 10 years, the state has made a tremendous leap to the left. Remember, it gave a 4 million vote margin of victory to Hillary.
I understand the representation issue, however, such additional representation would only strengthen one party, so I don't see any benefit. Further, the state in general can't afford the government and dependents it has created, so adding two more states of similar focus would be more devastating.
As to water, there is little chance a "North-O-Nia" could cut off water to the "Southern States". 30+ million people aren't going to allow that to happen.
If the 3 state option were done, I don't think the central valley & northern portion would automatically be solid Dem. That's actually the primary reason I favor the 3 state option, so those people can feel some hope of representation, also.
Cali is a big powerful state. Break it into three and one of those three will end up with less clout than West Virginia. And even the largest of them will be whittled down to about the size of Michigan.Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?
Why or why not? What would be the pros and cons each way?
Cali is a big powerful state. Break it into three and one of those three will end up with less clout than West Virginia. And even the largest of them will be whittled down to about the size of Michigan.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?