The thing is, they have to put the new state capitals somewhere, and the towns where they do and the counties that they're in (and maybe the adjoining counties) automatically and magically become very very pro-big government.
Given the great egos of San Franciscans, I also can't see them ever ending up at the tail end of somebody else's state, like an afterthought. Or Los Angeles somehow becoming "West California" for that matter (though the names of the new states aren't set in stone yet).
“The thing is, they have to put the new state capitals somewhere, and the towns where they do and the counties that they’re in (and maybe the adjoining counties) automatically and magically become very very pro-big government.”
Why do you need a capitol? Keep in mind that no new state has happened since 1959: well before the advent of the internet. Why not just do it electronically and skip the added infrastructure?
Come to think of it, perhaps one or more of the existing states should go to an electronic model.
How about Sierra for their "North CA," Sequoia for their "Central CA," and Euphoria for their "Silicon Valley"? Then perhaps change "West CA" to Southern California (there's already a university by that name in L.A.) and their "South CA" to Alta California. Or change their "South CA" to Pacifica and then "West CA" could just be plain "California."
The idea for Euphoria comes from David Lodge's novel Changing Places where he has that as the fictional name for a state that includes Berkeley (which he calls Plotinus...one obscure philosopher replacing another).
Well, as a Kern Cty resident, I want nothing to do with LA County or their idiocy in the “new” West Ca..so that makes us even.
Given the makeup of this map, I suspect there will be folks on both sides who won’t agree to it as presented. Look at Orange County absorbing most of LA...those folks would probably cry foul as well...