Six California's

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**chaos0xomega**

From ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/petition-to-split-california-into-six-states-gets-green-light/

A venture capitalist who feels colossal California is too unwieldy to govern is proposing to split it into six separate states, and Secretary of State Debra Bowen has given him the green light to start collecting petition signatures.
Tim Draper filed a ballot initiative in December stating that because of recent social and economic changes California has become “nearly ungovernable.”
He proposed dividing California into six states. San Diego and Orange County would make up “South California.” “West California” would include Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, while Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton would make up the larger “Central California.” San Francisco and San Jose would be in the new “Silicon Valley.” “North California” would include the Sacramento area, and “Jefferson” would be home to the Redding and Eureka areas.
“California as it is is ungovernable,” Draper told ABC News today. “It is more and more difficult for Sacramento to keep up with the social issues from the various regions of California. With six Californias, people will be closer to their state governments, and states can get a refresh”.
Brendan Nyhan, Assistant Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, isn’t sold on the idea. “Splitting California into six states would raise all sorts of concerns about the partisan balance of the senate. I can’t imagine this would ever go anywhere” said Nyhan.
Nyhan says a plan like this would surface many issues. Things like water policy, agricultural policy, and even the electoral college would all change if this plan were to take action.
The plan aims to settle California’s financial issues after the separation of the states. If things can’t be resolved, each state would receive a portion of the state’s debts based on the newly created state’s population.
If the federal government approves creating six new states, “all tax collections and spending by the existing State of California would end, with its assets and liabilities divided among the new states,” Secretary of State Debra Bowen said in a statement on Tuesday.
That would leave decisions regarding taxes and public spending of the new states up to its elected leaders.
If California were its own separate country, it would have the eighth-largest economy in the world.
In order to make this plan a reality, Draper needs to start collecting signatures in order to qualify the petition for a ballot. He needs the signatures of 807,615 registered voters in 150 days, making his deadline July 18, 2014.
“We are going to put together a grass roots effort to get signatures,” Draper said. “It looks very promising since there are already several movements to create new states here”.

What are your thoughts dakka? If this were to happen (which I doubt) I wonder if Jefferson would try to gain control of southern Oregon as per the original proposal.

**Corpsesarefun**

If California is too big what on earth do they propose to do about Texas?!

**cincydooley**

Honestly, I think in theory it's a great idea, as California as a whole has proven it can't successfully govern itself.

It'll happen about as soon as Texas secedes from the Union though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corpsesarefun wrote:
If California is too big what on earth do they propose to do about Texas?!

Texas doesn't have the governance problems. That's the big diff. Texas may have the most stable and consistent state government in the union.

**LordofHats**

Texas and California imo are too big. They exert to much influence in presidential politics, and further more a section of both states dictates that influence. I'd love to see them broken into smaller sections (6 seems like too many for me).

**Frazzled**

I could care less. Just keep the Californians IN California. Too many have spread to other states. We had to set up an entire city (Austin) just to quarantine them in.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Texas and California imo are too big. They exert to much influence in presidential politics, and further more a section of both states dictates that influence. I'd love to see them broken into smaller sections (6 seems like too many for me).

Ever since Texas allowed the other states to join it in 1845 its been nonstop jealousy.
Hah suck it inferior state person! TEXAS UBER ALLES!.

**chaos0xomega**

Well, Texas (at the time of annexation) was provided with the option to divide into 5 states. The difference though between Texas and Cali (I think) is that Texas is much more homogenous (politically, socially, economically, and culturally) than California is. Thats not to say it IS homogenous, just that it is moreso than Cali.

Also Frazzled, Texas ain't got nothin' on Jersey. You might be bigger, but we're better.

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:

Hah suck it inferior state person!

It's not my fault that no one lives in South Dakota! All we got are some rocks with faces on it. Texas has the damn Alamo.

**cincydooley**

LordofHats wrote:
Texas and California imo are too big. They exert to much influence in presidential politics, and further more a section of both states dictates that influence. I'd love to see them broken into smaller sections (6 seems like too many for me).

They're not really even close in regards to their influence.

55 vs 39 electoral votes?

Not close.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Texas is one of the few states in the union I'd happily move to, in a heartbeat. They are, in this order:

Texas
Tennesee (but only to Nashville)
Michigan (but only northern michigan, and only if I don't have to cheer for the University of Michigan)

And maybe Wisconsin (but not Madison).

**LordofHats**

cincydooley wrote:

55 vs 39 electoral votes?

39 is a lot of electoral votes in a large state where the outcome of those votes are mostly decided by massive gerrymandering to reduce the voting power of anyone not living in the state's center areas where almost all political power comes from for Texas. California has the same problem, with the southern population centers pretty much dictating everything the state does. Honesty I'd like to see any state with more than 20 electoral votes readjusted but we'll probably never see California split, let alone Texas or anyone else.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Hah suck it inferior state person!

It's not my fault that no one lives in South Dakota! All we got are some rocks with faces on it. Texas has the damn Alamo.

IIRC but the Dakotas have a buttload of oil no? You have rocks with faces, and more oil than Iran...

**FirePainter**

LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Hah suck it inferior state person!

It's not my fault that no one lives in South Dakota! All we got are some rocks with faces on it. Texas has the damn Alamo.

Hey people live in South Dakota (not by choice mind you) but we do live here.

**LordofHats**

Frazzled wrote:

IIRC but the Dakotas have a buttload of oil no? You have rocks with faces, and more oil than Iran...

But oil's so dirty. It gets everywhere and then I have to clean that mess up!

**FirePainter**

Also South Dakota really doesn't have oil thats all North dakota. South Dakota has nothing but I-90 and wind

**Frazzled**

FirePainter wrote:
Also South Dakota really doesn't have oil thats all North dakota. South Dakota has nothing but I-90 and wind

Simple. Invade North Dakota. I even have a motto for you. "The South (Dakota) Shal RIse Again!"

Play with their heads and wear blue uniforms.

**chaos0xomega**

New York has the same political issues. NY City has all the political clout, and thus you have NYC politicians dictating laws to the people of Buffalo/Upstate NY. There have been similar attempts to break off Western NY from the Eastern half as a result. I've heard the same about Massachusetts, urban polticians from the East passing legislation that screws over the rural west.

**Dreadclaw69**

So if California did split up would it have greater voting power at a Federal level compared to what it presently has?

**djones520**

LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Hah suck it inferior state person!

It's not my fault that no one lives in South Dakota! All we got are some rocks with faces on it. Texas has the damn Alamo.

I personally love South Dakota. If Michigan wasn't such an awesome state, it would be where I'd want to retire to.

**squidhills**

Guys, guys, we're approaching this problem all wrong.

The important issue is: if California splits into six states, what will the abbreviations be?

**trexmeyer**

squidhills wrote:
Guys, guys, we're approaching this problem all wrong.

The important issue is: if California splits into six states, what will the abbreviations be?

26 letters leads to 325 permutations if I remember statistics correctly. I don't think we have to worry about running out of two letter combinations for states anytime soon.

**AegisGrimm**

California already seems to be trying all the time to split itself into 2 pieces- one on either side of the San Andreas.

**Desubot**

AegisGrimm wrote:
California already seems to be trying all the time to split itself into 2 pieces- one on either side of the San Andreas.

HA!

Id be fine with the split.

**Jimsolo**

Coming from a region that has made noise about splitting off into a separate state for...well, ever...I don't see it amounting to anything.

**MrMoustaffa**

I'm all for this. Maybe we can save some of that beautiful country in the north from that hell hole that is the southern half of the state before they run it into the ground

Also, we'd get a new flag with 55 stars. Who wouldn't want that?

**Jihadin**

South Dakota Californian Reservation...

**Aerethan**

Frazzled wrote:
I could care less. Just keep the Californians IN California. Too many have spread to other states. We had to set up an entire city (Austin) just to quarantine them in.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Texas and California imo are too big. They exert to much influence in presidential politics, and further more a section of both states dictates that influence. I'd love to see them broken into smaller sections (6 seems like too many for me).

Ever since Texas allowed the other states to join it in 1845 its been nonstop jealousy.
Hah suck it inferior state person! TEXAS UBER ALLES!.

I'd be offended at the first part of this if I wasn't 100% who Frazzled is talking about. I'll be there in July!

California can die in a fire.

**KingCracker**

cincydooley wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Texas and California imo are too big. They exert to much influence in presidential politics, and further more a section of both states dictates that influence. I'd love to see them broken into smaller sections (6 seems like too many for me).

They're not really even close in regards to their influence.

55 vs 39 electoral votes?

Not close.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Texas is one of the few states in the union I'd happily move to, in a heartbeat. They are, in this order:

Texas
Tennesee (but only to Nashville)
Michigan (but only northern michigan, and only if I don't have to cheer for the University of Michigan)

And maybe Wisconsin (but not Madison).

As a member of the Michigan alliance, I say you don't need to cheer for anything you don't want to cheer for. Hell I publicly announce how much I don't like Bob Seger, which in this state is bad to do

**Kilkrazy**

It seems to me that saying a state is "ungovernable" so it should be split up does not address the issue of why it is ungovernable and what else might be done about those causes.

California is smaller than places like the UK or India, which are very diverse and do not seem to be ungovernable.

Perhaps the proposed split is a way of the rich, successful parts of the state ditching the rest, much like Belgium is thinking of splitting into Walloon and French areas.

**Soladrin**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me that saying a state is "ungovernable" so it should be split up does not address the issue of why it is ungovernable and what else might be done about those causes.

California is smaller than places like the UK or India, which are very diverse and do not seem to be ungovernable.

Perhaps the proposed split is a way of the rich, successful parts of the state ditching the rest, much like Belgium is thinking of splitting into Walloon and French areas.

Yeah and we don't want them either.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me that saying a state is "ungovernable" so it should be split up does not address the issue of why it is ungovernable and what else might be done about those causes.

California is smaller than places like the UK or India, which are very diverse and do not seem to be ungovernable.

Perhaps the proposed split is a way of the rich, successful parts of the state ditching the rest, much like Belgium is thinking of splitting into Walloon and French areas.

Check a map. California is larger than the UK.
And in actuality its the country wanting to split from the city, and San Francisco wanting to become its own planet.

**Kilkrazy**

Topologically speaking the UK is much larger than California because you have to include the tunnel to the centre of the Earth that the Queen uses to visit her lizard people legions.