• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?

Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?


  • Total voters
    66

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
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?
 
Why split? So Republicans can Garrymader it?
 
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?

In principal, it's a viable idea and would potentially have numerous advantages. The negotiations with the other states could be onerous, though.
 
Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?

Why or why not? What would be the pros and cons each way?

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.
 
To accomplish this the electoral votes would have to be in balance for political reasons. There has been movements about splitting the state, most recently into six states. That is a bit extreme. The motives to split the state are that the public unions control the electoral process, and those who are elected with their money are beholden to them first, and all other matters come second. That leaves everyone else out.

Personally, I don't think the state will split for a very long time. It's about power that the central valley, North California, and Jefferson, lack.

split state.jpg

IMO, if anything happens it will be when the state finally starts feeling the effects of it's hidden bankruptcy. Personally, many "split staters" are looking for a new SCOTUS ruling to get public unions out of politics, and the five state argument is one way to threaten them.
 
I was thinking secession! :2wave:

Segmentation might make sense. Probably the idea of secession would not help the Population of the State.
 
Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?

Why or why not? What would be the pros and cons each way?

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?
 
One con is obvious - more (blue?) congressional representation for the same number of folks. The other cons are that many red states could then do the same thing eventually giving us a congress critter population that approaches that of a small state. Texas has counties that are bigger than Delaware - let's make them into new (red?) states too. ;)
 
I was thinking secession! :2wave:


Well Trump becoming president is in my opinion a far better reason to secession then a Lincoln becoming president.
 
In principal, it's a viable idea and would potentially have numerous advantages. The negotiations with the other states could be onerous, though.
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 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.

California-3-Model.jpg

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.
 
Last edited:
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?

Fun fact, Texas actually has mechanism to split itself up into 5 states to get more senate seats. North Texas, South Texas, East Texas, West Texas, and Austin.
 
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 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 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.
 
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.

The southern region you identified contains millions of illegal aliens and their legal relatives. They are almost unilaterally liberal and either vote, or would vote for any Democratic Party Proposals.

The extreme Northern section of the "eastern state" is also growing strongly to the left.

Consider the fact that Democrats hold a super majority in the California State Legislature. That is an indicator of where the population is statewide.
 
Yes, a million times yes. Make at least a coastal California and an East California. I'm sick of living in the same state as degenerate coastal elites and their slave labor (illegals).
 
Dump the idiot liberals into the sea.
 
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.
 
No, it will mess up the flag.
 
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.

And the problem with that is, what?
 
Back
Top Bottom