California, and many other states are far too large to have their populations fairly represented at the Federal level (even at the State level, in some instances). Here in Ohio, a three state model would work well, too.
California? Likely at least three, maybe four, states. Six might be on the high side, but it should be up to the folks in the current state to decide.
A grand idea, all in all.
If the Washington Times keeps up promoting nulification and separation they’ll soon become irrelevant. And their writers dismissed as “conservative” nutcases.
We’re getting closer to Obama’s estimate of 57 states.
Most of my family lives in Butte County. Am I correct in that they would fall within the prospective state of Jefferson?
It won’t happen. I was born and raised out there. Originally there have been plans to divide the state at the Tehacchappi Mountians. Heck, gang bangers already do this with “norte” and “sud” and you better not get caught in wrong territory.
So my money is on it not happening.
BTW I would not move back there regardless of what they decide to do.
FREEGARDS
LEX
Trust me - if it’s coming from a VC, it’s hyperRat all the way, no matter what it seems to look like.
Is any part of California becoming more Republican?
California is unwinnable mainly because of the white who left rather than the illegals. I think the split amongst whites is 50-50 Democrat Republican.
In Arizona it is 2/3 of whites voting GOP and in Texas it is 80% voting GOP.
It's gone Jim...
I sure miss the Sierra country, but the rest of it...
Much the same way that Chicago politically controls Illinois, you will find that there will be various large cities in each of these “new” states to run over the concerns of the rural/conservative areas of the state. San Francisco will control whatever state it is a part of, as will Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Riverside/San Bernardino/Ontario metro area.
The only way to for conservative voices to be heard is to “exclude” the large metro areas from at least half of these new states. Does anyone believe a state with a Democrat Governor, Senate, and House is going to go for that?
That would mean 10 more Senators from California and ten more electoral votes.
That will make us closer to 57 states. Although when Hussein mentioned 57 states, he was referring to the 57 Islamic states. A faux pax like when he referred to his Muslim faith.
The Far North was always ignored and if they made a big enough fuss they probably could have gotten out years ago (Pearl Harbor got in the way the last time).
Then the problem was that San Francisco and Los Angeles couldn't stand to be in the same state -- and there were all those water issues.
But the Central Valley and the coast in between SF and LA probably didn't want to be thrown in with either megalopolis either.
Now San Jose doesn't want to knuckle under to San Francisco or San Diego to Los Angeles. Ergo, six states.
But I can't see this going anywhere, even if a balance between political parties could be achieved. Every part of the country has its own dramas, and the rest of the country isn't going to let California's (or Texas's) take center stage.
I like this a lot!
I’d be a new resident. It looks like both my favorite places are splitting apart from Sacramento and SoCal.
If that happened, four of the six new states would go red.
I’m not wild about the idea of my idiot neighbors getting to pick 10 more Senators. We’ve done enough damage picking two of the dimmest bulbs to ever wander into that chamber.
Oregon and "West Washington" were strong for Obama, but "East Washington" went for Romney by a decent margin.
The state of "Jefferson" -- the top quarter of California plus most of the bottom third of Oregon -- also went for Romney.
"California" -- Sacramento, San Francisco, the Central Coast, and Los Angeles -- picked Obama by a landslide, but "South California" -- San Diego, the desert, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange County, and the southern Central Valley -- only went very narrowly for Obama (.5%).
Of course, the state would never be divided up that way.
Democrats would never turn a sure win state into three states, two of which they couldn't count on.
Los Angeles would never consent to be the tail tacked onto the end of San Francisco's state, when for years the whole point of breakup would have been to give each city it's own state.
But it was an interesting experiment.