• 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 said:
Should California split into 2, or even 3, states?

Why or why not? What would be the pros and cons each way?
Click to expand...

I am open to the idea of it.From a conservative perspective the pros would be republicans could get some actual representation in that area depending on how the state is split up. The cons from a conservative perspective would be liberals getting an extra 2 to 4 senators depending on how California is split up. Because each state gets 2 senators.
 
I am not sure if anybody has hit on this yet but if NorCal and SoCal split SoCal would be in big trouble due to water rights alone... if NorCal cut off the source, which is the only thing keeping SoCal from dying, almost literally.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am not sure if anybody has hit on this yet but if NorCal and SoCal split SoCal would be in big trouble due to water rights alone... if NorCal cut off the source, which is the only thing keeping SoCal from dying, almost literally.
Click to expand...

That would depending entirely on where the border was set.

Duh.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
That would depending entirely on where the border was set.

Duh.
Click to expand...

Literally almost all other water comes to Southern California from outside Southern California. Owens Valley, Hetch Hetchy, the CA Aqueduct taking from the Sacramento River, etc.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

California was a red state when I left it in 89. Sadly it has become a liberal cesspool.
 
Moderate Right said:
But it's not like the Northern part of the state is one party and the Southern part of the state is a different party.
Click to expand...

No, it's the western part of the state is one party and the eastern part of the state is a different party. We all want the liberals to break off and sink into the sea.
 
jamesrage said:
I am open to the idea of it.From a conservative perspective the pros would be republicans could get some actual representation in that area depending on how the state is split up. The cons from a conservative perspective would be liberals getting an extra 2 to 4 senators depending on how California is split up. Because each state gets 2 senators.
Click to expand...

No, liberals wouldn't get anything. They already get all of the representatives because they live in the big cities. Conservatives would get more, liberals would get nothing.

Sounds good to me.
 
AlbqOwl said:
California is a wonderful state with much to commend it. I know a lot of Californians very well and love a fair number of those dearly.

But. . .

I was just reading a recent article--I think in Forbes--citing the 20 least affordable areas to live in the USA. Three of those were in New York State. Two were in Hawaii. The other fifteen were stretched along the California coast which ironically is where most of the people are. So however you split up California, you still are going to have large populations of wealthy leftists in pretty much every new state unless states are carved out of eastern California where there are very few people to support a state. In other words, those right of center won't be represented any better.

It wouldn't help us out with the popular vote issues vs EC vote. I can't think of any advantage to any of the rest of us and very little advantage for most of the people of California to split up the state.

California is larger in area than most countries of the world both in area--#90 out of 190+ if I am remembering right--and if it was a country it would have the eighth largest economy of the world ahead of Canada, Australia, and Russia. (That's down from fifth place I think in the 1980's.) If it were a country it would rank #36 in population among all the nations of the world. I think we should keep it as an example of what happens to a large 'country' that is controlled mostly by leftist policy and leftist thinking when compared to other states with more centrist or right leaning policies.
Click to expand...
Yes, good idea. Let's compare it to such right leaning states as Mississippi, and Alabama.
 
Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 5.33.16 PM.jpg

in CA 45.3% is federal land
 
Cephus said:
No, liberals wouldn't get anything. They already get all of the representatives because they live in the big cities. Conservatives would get more, liberals would get nothing.

Sounds good to me.
Click to expand...


That all depends how California is divided.Because there is a big ass population density in the upper half that votes loony libs and another big ass population density in the lower half that votes for loony libs.


population_small.jpg
 
jamesrage said:
That all depends how California is divided.Because there is a big ass population density in the upper half that votes loony libs and another big ass population density in the lower half that votes for loony libs.
Click to expand...

And we can do without all of them.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, good idea. Let's compare it to such right leaning states as Mississippi, and Alabama.
Click to expand...

The cost of living is a fraction of what it is along the California coast in both states. Mississippi ranks 4th in the nation for the percentage of the population who own their own homes - Alabama is 8th in the nation. California ranks the 3rd lowest in home ownership behind New York state and Washington DC. So though both states are among the ten states with the highest poverty rates, poor people will overall fare better in those states than will the poor in California that comes in at 18th in the nation with the highest poverty rates.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The cost of living is a fraction of what it is along the California coast in both states. Mississippi ranks 4th in the nation for the percentage of the population who own their own homes - Alabama is 8th in the nation. California ranks the 3rd lowest in home ownership behind New York state and Washington DC. So though both states are among the ten states with the highest poverty rates, poor people will overall fare better in those states than will the poor in California that comes in at 18th in the nation with the highest poverty rates.
Click to expand...
There were several reasons I abandoned California and one of the big ones was economic. I had a good job there. I made decent money. I got regular and decent pay raises. Always on a positive upward trajectory. But... no matter how many and how big my raises were, I always felt like I was only treading water, financially.

I live in the midwest now. Same industry. Roughly the same money I made 10 years ago. Raises aren't as big. But the economy here is more stable. My quality of life is more stable, and is still very good. I have a larger and newer house here than I did there and for a fraction of the price. Financially, while the numbers might not be as big, financially I am much better off here than I was there.

To me, the big difference is housing. Consumer goods prices are roughly the same or close, but housing is like night and day.
 
AlbqOwl said:
California ranks the 3rd lowest in home ownership behind New York state and Washington DC. .
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a stat that is probably fairly skewed.

1/2 of NY State's population is in NYC, where there are few 'homes'' to own. I would imagine California's 'home ownership' figure is skewed also because it has so many large populous cities.

But yes I'm sure there are other reasons too, like the high costs of homes in NY and California. But that isn't telling to whole story.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yeah, that's a stat that is probably fairly skewed.

1/2 of NY State's population is in NYC, where there are few 'homes'' to own. I would imagine California's 'home ownership' figure is skewed also because it has so many large populous cities.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that factors in, but they're still radically more expensive to live, too.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yes, I just edited my post to include that. I live in NY. I'm very aware of the costs.
Click to expand...
As far as your point goes, I would think that New York is worse than California in that regard. At least in NYC.

In California, San Francisco is very NYC-like, but Los Angeles is more spread out and at least historically had more home ownership. That may have changed, though, not sure.
 
radcen said:
As far as your point goes, I would think that New York is worse than California in that regard. At least in NYC.

In California, San Francisco is very NYC-like, but Los Angeles is more spread out and at least historically had more home ownership. That may have changed, though, not sure.
Click to expand...

IIRC NYC has about 8.5 million people, and L.A. has about 4 mil. But L.A., areawise, is 5 times bigger than NYC. So yeah I am sure NY has pretty low home ownership simply because so many people live in NYC where there aren't many homes.

But even in some parts of California I'm sure has low home ownership because of how densely populated it is.
 
ObamacareFail said:
California was a red state when I left it in 89. Sadly it has become a liberal cesspool.
Click to expand...

Indeed it was.

And then the California Democratic Party adopted a brilliant strategy akin to death by 1000 cuts. Little moves here and there. The immigration issue, climate, environment, colossal Nanny State handouts creating huge numbers of dependents. 1 out of 6 living in Cali get some type/form of government assistance.


California and Venezuela have much in common.

What a shame.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The cost of living is a fraction of what it is along the California coast in both states. Mississippi ranks 4th in the nation for the percentage of the population who own their own homes - Alabama is 8th in the nation. California ranks the 3rd lowest in home ownership behind New York state and Washington DC. So though both states are among the ten states with the highest poverty rates, poor people will overall fare better in those states than will the poor in California that comes in at 18th in the nation with the highest poverty rates.
Click to expand...

California coastal cities do have some of the most expensive real estate in the country, no question about that. Supply and demand drives real estate prices, just as it does the price of everything else. Now we must ask ourselves, what keeps demand so high?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom