Six California's

[CalStateTempe]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

Break California up into 6 states?

Sounds like a very California thing to do.

[Merkin]

I'm cool being with Ventura, Santa Barbara, SLO and Monterey counties, although the population really isn't here, thankfully. Still more people than Alaska.

[azcat49]

I do think it makes sense for many reasons. All of these big states might end up doing things this way

[CalStateTempe]

I do think it makes sense for many reasons. All of these big states might end up doing things this way

I see it as a cash grab for the money'd elites on the coasts, leaving the Central Valley and the far north to fend for themselves and ultimately become some of the poorest states in the new union.

Smacks of the "I've got mine, screw the rest of you" mentality.

[Merkin]

Far north has the water and the central valley has the biggest fruit and vegetable producing region in the nation. They will do OK.

Having 12 senators has to help California, which is one of the biggest states that receives less federal tax dollars than they pay in, subsidizing the South and other areas.

[CalStateTempe]

Fair enough.

[ASUHATER!]

Far north has the water and the central valley has the biggest fruit and vegetable producing region in the nation. They will do OK.

Having 12 senators has to help California, which is one of the biggest states that receives less federal tax dollars than they pay in, subsidizing the South and other areas.

i don't know if i ever see us really wanting to have more than 100 senators. we worked so hard for 172 years to get exactly 100...

[Salty]

Far north has the water and the central valley has the biggest fruit and vegetable producing region in the nation. They will do OK.

Having 12 senators has to help California, which is one of the biggest states that receives less federal tax dollars than they pay in, subsidizing the South and other areas.

i don't know if i ever see us really wanting to have more than 100 senators. we worked so hard for 172 years to get exactly 100...

Isn't Puerto Rico about to become a state or did that die?

[Merkin]

Far north has the water and the central valley has the biggest fruit and vegetable producing region in the nation. They will do OK.

Having 12 senators has to help California, which is one of the biggest states that receives less federal tax dollars than they pay in, subsidizing the South and other areas.

i don't know if i ever see us really wanting to have more than 100 senators. we worked so hard for 172 years to get exactly 100...

Delaware, North and South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming all have less than 1 million people, which is the population in metro Tucson. They should get one senator each.

[Longhorned]

Phoenix should be its own country, and Machina its president.

[BigSkyCatinMT]

Not to be a turd, but a friend of mine who I went to college with, while not owning a vote, still held a voice in the House as LT Gov. of Saipan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Benavente

[Sage&Silver]

When this whole system was set up, a voting member of the House represented about 10,000 voters. Today the number has ballooned to 520,000. While Senators weren't directly elected the ones from the most populous state, New York (roughly half the population of Metro Tucson), only represented about 60,000 voters.

Obviously, maintaining those ratios would require a congress more bloated and ineffectual than what we have today. I am just pointing out what little voice each voter has in our republic today. I'm in favor of breaking up large discontinuous populations. How can one state government effectively manage 38M+ people and their associated businesses and residences?

I do think it makes sense for many reasons. All of these big states might end up doing things this way

I see it as a cash grab for the money'd elites on the coasts, leaving the Central Valley and the far north to fend for themselves and ultimately become some of the poorest states in the new union.

Smacks of the "I've got mine, screw the rest of you" mentality.

It is a valid concern. What concerns me most is the Silicon Valley backers of this have, as you may have guessed, carved out their own state.

But the rural regions of CA aren't exactly living off subsidies from Palo Alto. They are low to medium population density areas creating wealth from the land. I've heard those new states will become the deep south of the west. That is ridiculous. The negative aspects of our collective view on the south have more to do with culture than economy. If they become a west coast Nebraska, is that really so bad (or so different)? And don't forget they'll gain more political freedom from LA/SF as well.

Isn't Puerto Rico about to become a state or did that die?

Politics. PR puts two more Democrats in the Senate. You'd need a Democratic controlled congress, and either an Democrat in the White house, or a expansionist minded Republican. AND all of that would have to coincide with a PR vote to become a state. The two scenarios haven't aligned in the past. Maybe someday they will.

[Bruins01]

When this whole system was set up, a voting member of the House represented about 10,000 voters. Today the number has ballooned to 520,000. While Senators weren't directly elected the ones from the most populous state, New York (roughly half the population of Metro Tucson), only represented about 60,000 voters.

Obviously, maintaining those ratios would require a congress more bloated and ineffectual than what we have today. I am just pointing out what little voice each voter has in our republic today. I'm in favor of breaking up large discontinuous populations. How can one state government effectively manage 38M+ people and their associated businesses and residences?

I do think it makes sense for many reasons. All of these big states might end up doing things this way

I see it as a cash grab for the money'd elites on the coasts, leaving the Central Valley and the far north to fend for themselves and ultimately become some of the poorest states in the new union.

Smacks of the "I've got mine, screw the rest of you" mentality.

It is a valid concern. What concerns me most is the Silicon Valley backers of this have, as you may have guessed, carved out their own state.

But the rural regions of CA aren't exactly living off subsidies from Palo Alto. They are low to medium population density areas creating wealth from the land. I've heard those new states will become the deep south of the west. That is ridiculous. The negative aspects of our collective view on the south have more to do with culture than economy. If they become a west coast Nebraska, is that really so bad (or so different)? And don't forget they'll gain more political freedom from LA/SF as well.

Isn't Puerto Rico about to become a state or did that die?

Politics. PR puts two more Democrats in the Senate. You'd need a Democratic controlled congress, and either an Democrat in the White house, or a expansionist minded Republican. AND all of that would have to coincide with a PR vote to become a state. The two scenarios haven't aligned in the past. Maybe someday they will.

Much of rural California's population descended from farmers from Oklahoma and Arkansas who moved here during the Dust Bowl. There is a very strong cultural link to the American south.

[Merkin]

Some Cal State LA professor in the early 1970s suggested reforming the 50 statues into 38.

http://www.tjc.com/38states/



No idea why LV would be with LA and SD when SLC is all by itself.

[Longhorned]

Much of rural California's population descended from farmers from Oklahoma and Arkansas who moved here during the Dust Bowl. There is a very strong cultural link to the American south.

Amazing how they still speak with a southern accent.

[Merkin]

Much of rural California's population descended from farmers from Oklahoma and Arkansas who moved here during the Dust Bowl. There is a very strong cultural link to the American south.

Amazing how they still speak with a southern accent.

I used to work with a contractor from Fresno who still had an accent. He said his grandparents were the O word.

[Jefe]

How would this affect the 55 electoral college votes?

[ASUHATER!]

well electoral vote representation swings wildly between like 200,000 to 700,000 or so per vote on average. i'd assume states like silicon valley, west california and south california would probably still get a good 10-15 votes each but one like jefferson might only have a couple. that entire area of california only has a few hundred thousand people.

[Bruins01]

How would this affect the 55 electoral college votes?

This bit of blind squirrel finding a nut is actually the biggest reason why this won't happen.

This is also why the electoral college and the Senate need to cease existing.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Some Cal State LA professor in the early 1970s suggested reforming the 50 statues into 38.

http://www.tjc.com/38states/



No idea why LV would be with LA and SD when SLC is all by itself.

[youtube]EhHRt2PpHsQ[/youtube]

Because it was the 70's.

[ASUHATER!]

what would you replace the senate with?

[Spaceman Spiff]

what would you replace the senate with?

[youtube]1PQiq8zajCE[/youtube]

[Bruins01]

what would you replace the senate with?

Virtually every single advanced democracy has only a unicameral legislature. The Senate does not need to be replaced with anything. Abolishing the Senate and doubling the membership of the House (so that each Congressperson represents fewer people) doesn't have any downsides to me.

[JW_in_Boston]

No negative other than an 800+ person House? Yeah that seems likely to get anything passed. Guess if the house and pres are the same party things might fly through but that was an unmitigated disaster in the W administration. Sometimes gridlock is better than free passage of horrible policies. That said I'm in favor of tiny States only getting 1 senator as some don't really even deserve 1.