Replies

Glad to have you on board!

It's almost an east-west split, but there are some important differences. A true east-west split had been proposed before, but was flawed in that it required the majority of state citizens where most of the population is concentrated along the coast to voluntarily give up their control of the resources located in the eastern part of the state, primarily the fresh water.

Likewise, there have been recent proposals to split the state north and south driven by water concerns in the northern part of the state where most fresh water originates. This was a failed effort because it required the more populated southern part of the state to vote to cut the water supply. It was never going to happen.

More recently, the discussions to divide the state north and south were purely political, and as you have so aptly noted, it would not have resolved the political divides, but doubled them.

This proposal keeps the rural coastal areas intact with inland rural areas, and the conservative southland. It is crafted to give the larger state as best a Republican form of government possible. It is uniquely balanced between rural and urban areas, and northern and southern populations.

Aside from controlling natural resources, the new larger state would be much more likely to create a state border control along the Mexican border. There would be little chance of future illegal aliens reaching destinations in the Los Angeles or San Francisco regions. Such a border control could also be deployed around the border of the smaller state to assure illegal aliens already residing there stay there.

Here's an interesting tidbit to toss around. The majority of state prisons are located outside the eight counties that would create the small state. The small state would be faced with three choices.

They can choose to have the prisoners from their regions released into their general population. Such a decision would automatically create a more conservative swing in the voters of the small state as crime rises.

Second, they could pay the larger state to warehouse their prisoners, which would create an additional revenue source for the large state.

The last choice would be to construct new prisons within the populated areas of the small state. This too could well make the citizens of the small state take a more conservative stance within those areas.

The initiative I'd like to see put forth to voters would have state lands and building remain in the control of the state in which they are located.

It must also provide for the division of any budget deficit. Ideally, the deficit would be split equally among the two state. This would favor the larger state as 55% of the population is located in those areas, plus the new state would have a fiscally conservative government apt to cut pay off the debt immediately.

The smaller state would not have as easy a time paying down their debt. They'll be too busy borrowing money to purchase land and build prisons or hire police!