• 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?

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,943
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, this is something actually being proposed:

[h=1]Lyles: California solution – Divide by six[/h]
Tim Draper, a Silicon Valley investor, announced in December that he is sponsoring a new initiative to split California into six states. The plan is actually brilliant and deserves everyone’s support. The most important outcomes of the plan are that it will get rid of big government at the state level for Californians, while giving each of us better representation in Washington. This in turn gives us more leverage to solve problems at the federal level.

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?
 
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?

I wish it would happen, but LA, San Francisco and Sacramento will not allow it to happen. Pie in the sky, dreams doomed to failure. The big reason is water, and water rights. The second reason is money.
 
So does this mean we get to see the New California Republic?
ncr_flag_by_party9999999-d31te57.png
 
If any of the states trend libertarian, I'm moving. :lol:
 
6 sounds excessive. Cut it in half and the one side gets stuck with Sacramento.
 
What do you think? Idiocy, or possibility?

I vote idiocy.
Just the usual sniveling by a whiny California GOPer.:shrug:
Apacherat should arrive at any moment now.
 
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.
 
tough sell
creating 10 more senate seats so that 'old California' has 12 senate seats.
what would stop texas or new york from demanding the same senate considerations?
 
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.
 
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?

I t is an interesting proposition and certainly has advantages for Californians. What you say, however, is quite true. It would have consequences for everyone else as well and would change their contract with the Ca. I had a similar idea a few years ago with respect to Germany in the EU. The loss in the value of a person's vote is much lower for a large State in a federation than that of a citizen of a smaller one.
 
Doesn`t matter what I think.

Because it would be for the Californians to decide.
 
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?

Possible to have a split in the state, but not very likely. There are a lot of good reasons to do it, and a lot of good reasons not to do it.
 
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.
 
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?

I think it would be a good idea, but I do not see it happening.
 
I'm more interested in justifications that aren't so rooted in selfish manipulation of the political system. Are there cultural barriers in the different "states" that make the one size fits all untenable? Is one of the "states" being unacceptably held back? I'm not talking just basic economic situation either, but where for example one "state" wants to mandate solar housing and electric cars, some innovation that is being held captive to regressive population in the other "states."
 
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?
I think a lot of the bigger population states could possibly be broken up into smaller states, Texas, Florida, New York, etc etc, however what is the purpose of doing so? Seems strictly political and really does nothing for the ones living in those areas. If people don't like certain areas dominating politics, get more of their friends to vote, since maybe half of eligible voters vote, get that up to 80-90%. Be active in your state and get involved, make that difference. Carving out blue and red in states I do not think is the answer. People have to want change for change to occur. In the end we are not Californians, New Yorkers, North Dakotan, etc etc, we are American and need to unite for our own good.
Another possibility is move to another state that fits your needs more.
 
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?

I hate to use the idiocy, but it was one of two answers you left me and I do not think there is even a remote possibility of California being divided in two, let alone dividing it by 6.
 
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?

Idiocy.
 
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.

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.
 
What???

Your federal government can simply tell a state to splitt up?????????

No, but no state gets created unless the Federal Government authorizes it. How do you think Alaska and Hawaii became states? The folks there just decided to be states one day and bang, there they were?
 
Back
Top Bottom