• 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!

Split California into six states?

Wiggen said:
No, but no state gets created unless the Federal Government authorizes it. How do you think Alaska and Hawaii became states?
Click to expand...

Alaska was bought by your government from a Russian monarchy that went broke during a war with the Turks.

Hawaii was annexed after you deposed it`s monarchy.
 
The German said:
Alaska was bought by your government from a Russian monarchy that went broke during a war with the Turks.

Hawaii was annexed after you deposed it`s monarchy.
Click to expand...

Simply buying the Alaskan territory did not make it a State. First it becomes a "Territory" Then the residents must vote for statehood and the Federal Govt. must approve it.
 
iguanaman said:
Simply buying the Alaskan territory did not make it a State. First it becomes a "Territory" Then the residents must vote for statehood and the Federal Govt. must approve it.
Click to expand...


Yeah I am aware of the legal stuff and was simply fooling arround.

At first I really thought that the above poster suggested that the US government could simply splitt up states whenever they falt like it.
 
The German said:
Yeah I am aware of the legal stuff and was simply fooling arround.

At first I really thought that the above poster suggested that the US government could simply splitt up states whenever they falt like it.
Click to expand...

We don't really allow succession of States either even though you hear Texans squawking like it is actually an option. They don't remember what happened to the last States that tried it I guess.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, this is something actually being proposed:

[h=1]Lyles: California solution – Divide by six[/h]


Dividing California would affect the entire nation. For one thing, there would be 110 senators. For another, some of the new states would be red states, as SF would no longer dominate the politics of the entire state. Had the state been split before the last election, Obama would not have had all of the electors of the State of California, and Romney could well be the president today.

What do you think? Idiocy, or possibility?
Click to expand...

I don't think it'll happen, but I hope it will, as I think it's a great idea. Any time the people can be better represented by their government is a win for democracy. If you're a non-democrat in California, or a non-republican in Texas, your vote is worthless. If the people want to split up into smaller, more manageable states, then we should let them do it.

When California was first declared a state it was essentially the wild west with little population. We need to be flexible enough to adjust for major population shifts, and this one is long overdue. Trying to fit 38 million people under the same set of laws is rather insane.

Paschendale said:
Why exactly should the same number of people get lots of extra votes in the senate? This sort of thing would set a terrible precedent where states split up willy nilly. We should act to make representation more uniform, not less.
Click to expand...

I think our voting system needs to be reformed so that population is more important than arbitrary state lines. If the people of California can get better representation for their individual needs by region, why would this not be a great idea? Why try to fit 38 million people from vastly ranging geographies into one set of laws and governance?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I don't think it'll happen, but I hope it will, as I think it's a great idea. Any time the people can be better represented by their government is a win for democracy. If you're a non-democrat in California, or a non-republican in Texas, your vote is worthless. If the people want to split up into smaller, more manageable states, then we should let them do it.

When California was first declared a state it was essentially the wild west with little population. We need to be flexible enough to adjust for major population shifts, and this one is long overdue. Trying to fit 38 million people under the same set of laws is rather insane.

I think our voting system needs to be reformed so that population is more important than arbitrary state lines. If the people of California can get better representation for their individual needs by region, why would this not be a great idea? Why try to fit 38 million people from vastly ranging geographies into one set of laws and governance?
Click to expand...

Why would the other 49 states allow their senate representation be diluted?

You last paragraph also applies to the entire US as well. Why fit 350 million...into one set of federal laws and governance?
 
RogueWarrior said:
Why would the other 49 states allow their senate representation be diluted?

You last paragraph also applies to the entire US as well. Why fit 350 million...into one set of federal laws and governance?
Click to expand...

350 million people shouldn't be under the same laws and governance. There should be a very loose framework to facilitate the states working together, and to handle matters of national defense. Otherwise, the individual states should be able to decide how they want to run things. Some people like their big trucks, big guns, and low taxes, others don't. Why should we try to fit so many different types of people under one system where nobody can be happy?

And as I stated, I think the system should be reformed so that a state breaking into smaller pieces doesn't "dilute" the power of the other states. When California was founded in the mid 19th century it had 92,000 inhabitants, now it has 38 million. I find it rather asinine that we've drawn this arbitrary line where "the state can never be altered past its inception".
 
Wiggen said:
I'm willing to agree if we can also divide Texas so that the new part gets two Democratic Senators. Or, let's make DC a state and give them two senators. Sounds like a plan to me. Or lets give each of the Hawaiian Islands their own pair of Senators.
Click to expand...

The discussion is popping up in several states. Folks are getting tired of Blue States being decided because of the huge numbers that reside in inner cities where a good number of them are on government assistance. Welfare is like heroin, once you try it you are easily addicted to it and the party that keeps promising it is your favorite pusher. I've even read discussions where the southern counties in Oregon would like to join the northern counties in California both breaking away from their left controlling governments. If that happened, wonder what the name of the state would be? Calorego? Califorgeo? Oregonia? :) Many folks in upper state NY would love to break away. I think those in southern Illinois would relish the thought if they could be annexed into Missouri or Indiana.
 
vesper said:
This is the first time I've read 6 states purposed. For the last couple of years there have been some real serious debates going on in the northern counties that would love to break away. They are much more conservative and really tired of the left controlling things. North California, South California sounds good to me. Splitting up those 55 electoral votes sounds even better.
Click to expand...

I too have heard talk from Californians about splitting the state into North and South. If this is what California wants, more power to it. It's got to do something.
 
digsbe said:
They should split it up. It's far too large and more diverse than just San Fran and LA that seem to dominate the state's politics.
Click to expand...

You can say that about most every state in the Republic. People, not land votes. This is just an attempt to gerrymander the Electoral College like the House was so rigged. Pull this stunt in Texas and the GOP lock on the state is lost, the south would be a democratic state. play really silly games and you can carve off just enough GOP counties to mix in with the democrat leaning counties to make a bigger state AND still have right wing whiners complaining they need their own state!

The best the whiny right can hope for is breaking away from the densely populated coast and joining the sparsely populated desert states in an attempt to boost their representation. But so few people demanding so many states would be a recipe for disaster- we would have 100 states as this drive would spread across the country.

Seems some on the rather extreme right, rather than appeal to the populous as envisioned by the Founders, want to rig the game and create enclaves. Retrenchment is a sign of admitting defeat.
 
nota bene said:
I too have heard talk from Californians about splitting the state into North and South. If this is what California wants, more power to it. It's got to do something.
Click to expand...

Except that the north/south divide gains the Right Wing nothing. Split the state in half and still more liberal leaning folks will be residents. This is a east-west divide. Only problem there is the western counties are sparsely populated.

Land doesn't vote, people do, large empty CON counties are no match for the densely populated coastal counties with liberal tendencies.
 
Great replies. As a life long Californian, I'm not sure I'm for or against the idea of splitting the state. I can see some very knotty problems arising: As was pointed out, the federal government would have to approve, just as they approved the original admission into the union after the compromise of 1850. For another, the old state of California has obligations, debts, contracts made, and what would happen to those? How is it fair to other states for this one to suddenly have six senators instead of two?

On the other hand, we have politics in Sacramento decided basically by the people in LA and SF, with those of us in the hinterlands lacking enough population to make much of a difference at the ballot box. Northwest California would be a red state with little population. The Central Valley would be a red state with more population, and agriculture as the primary issue. People in those areas feel disenfranchised.
 
The German said:
Doesn`t matter what I think.

Because it would be for the Californians to decide.
Click to expand...
No, the other states would also get a say and I have a feeling the answer would be no.
 
nota bene said:
I too have heard talk from Californians about splitting the state into North and South. If this is what California wants, more power to it. It's got to do something.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be a north/south split though. That would just create two liberal states. It would coastal vs inland.
 
notquiteright said:
Except that the north/south divide gains the Right Wing nothing. Split the state in half and still more liberal leaning folks will be residents. This is a east-west divide. Only problem there is the western counties are sparsely populated.

Land doesn't vote, people do, large empty CON counties are no match for the densely populated coastal counties with liberal tendencies.
Click to expand...

Fine. East/West or North/South or whatever, including doing nothing, that California thinks is best for itself.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, this is something actually being proposed:

[h=1]Lyles: California solution – Divide by six[/h]


Dividing California would affect the entire nation. For one thing, there would be 110 senators. For another, some of the new states would be red states, as SF would no longer dominate the politics of the entire state. Had the state been split before the last election, Obama would not have had all of the electors of the State of California, and Romney could well be the president today.

What do you think? Idiocy, or possibility?
Click to expand...

California already has a huge Congressional delegation. I don't see why they should be allowed to multiply their Senate representation by 6 when other big-population areas are stuck with the same old 2. The Senate was never intended to be representation by population, that's what the House is for.
 
Yes, split California into 6 states.

and then consolidate the South into one.


should work nicely.
 
In all honesty, if Californians are sick of the distribution of power in the state, use the ballot initiative to restructure the internal workings of the state.

Define the concept of a regional government, delegate to it certain functions and authorities that the state-level government currently wields, then create 6 such governments, each of which are comprised of this or that set of counties.

I'm all for decentralizing power in this day and age. The Representative-to-electorate ratio is far too low, too many people are represented by too few people. I'm just not keen on one state solving its structural problems by changing the structure for the rest of us.

I mean, it's either that or make 6 Californias and have 3 of them share a Senator.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
In all honesty, if Californians are sick of the distribution of power in the state, use the ballot initiative to restructure the internal workings of the state.

Define the concept of a regional government, delegate to it certain functions and authorities that the state-level government currently wields, then create 6 such governments, each of which are comprised of this or that set of counties.

I'm all for decentralizing power in this day and age. The Representative-to-electorate ratio is far too low, too many people are represented by too few people. I'm just not keen on one state solving its structural problems by changing the structure for the rest of us.

I mean, it's either that or make 6 Californias and have 3 of them share a Senator.
Click to expand...

Except that there is no provision in the Constitution for states to share a senator. Are we to have a Constitutional amendment? The likelihood of such an amendment passing is somewhere between slim and none.

If the other states are jealous of the potential increase in power, maybe they could follow suit. I could see a West Washington (blue state) and an East Washington (red state) for example. Surely, a big state like Texas could find a reason to split into more than one.
 
vesper said:
The discussion is popping up in several states. Folks are getting tired of Blue States being decided because of the huge numbers that reside in inner cities where a good number of them are on government assistance. Welfare is like heroin, once you try it you are easily addicted to it and the party that keeps promising it is your favorite pusher. I've even read discussions where the southern counties in Oregon would like to join the northern counties in California both breaking away from their left controlling governments. If that happened, wonder what the name of the state would be? Calorego? Califorgeo? Oregonia? :) Many folks in upper state NY would love to break away. I think those in southern Illinois would relish the thought if they could be annexed into Missouri or Indiana.
Click to expand...

Yeah, lets make representation contingent on square miles instead of population!:lamo
 
The German said:
Alaska was bought by your government from a Russian monarchy that went broke during a war with the Turks.

Hawaii was annexed after you deposed it`s monarchy.
Click to expand...


And here I thought you had some basic level of intelligence in these matters! Alaska and Hawaii were both territories until they became states in 1959. Which is what we were talking about.

Nice effort and getting in some shots at the United States, however.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I think our voting system needs to be reformed so that population is more important than arbitrary state lines. If the people of California can get better representation for their individual needs by region, why would this not be a great idea? Why try to fit 38 million people from vastly ranging geographies into one set of laws and governance?
Click to expand...

Why bother with states at all, then? Just have local levels, like cities or counties, and then have them all be within a consistently sized and shaped region (state equivalent) but have it as a bureaucratic midway between local and national, instead of the mess that states are. Then we can stop mucking about with redistricting, gerrymandering, the electoral college, and a whole lot of other nonsense.
 
Dittohead not! said:
On the other hand, we have politics in Sacramento decided basically by the people in LA and SF, with those of us in the hinterlands lacking enough population to make much of a difference at the ballot box. Northwest California would be a red state with little population. The Central Valley would be a red state with more population, and agriculture as the primary issue. People in those areas feel disenfranchised.
Click to expand...

But neither of the areas you cite have enough population to be much of a state, have much of an economy, be able to do much for the people who think being a tiny island is a good thing. There has to be a practical side to this, gerrymandering districts within a state is one thing, trying to carve out a few low population counties into an independent state a whole 'nother breed of cat.

EVERY state has folks who feel their way is being blocked by 'the other guy'. It isn't disenfranchised- it is not getting my way. Same here in more rural states, we have large populations of liberal voting folks but the majority in the state is conservative. In Oklahoma 1/3 of the people voted for Obama but Willard got the entire electoral vote. Our panhandle periodically demands a separate state as does the panhandle of Texas. But neither has enough people to be much of a state.

I can see where those not IN California would love to see it, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida carved up into dysfunctional 'states'. Would make the low population red states more important.
 
Wiggen said:
Yeah, lets make representation contingent on square miles instead of population!:lamo
Click to expand...
Not at all. Those counties that break away to make a new state will have their representation decided on their population. Now I know why you would hate to see that happen. It would mean you could no longer enslave these folks to pay for your nanny state agenda. If California split or any other state, the conservatives would have all the jobs because they are business friendly, people would be working and unemployment rates would be low. The more people working the more the state collects while decreasing revenues for welfare which allows less reasons to raise taxes allowing people to keep more of their money. It's a win win situation. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom