http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/07...-west-spl/
Local
Californians Likely To Cast Votes On Splitting Into 6 States
July 15, 2014 7:17 PM

SACRAMENTO (CBS SF) — Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper will submit signatures on Tuesday to put a measure that would split California in six separate states.
The campaign announced the development with a tweet Monday:

Draper, who recently spoke at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, said that a state as big as California needs to be broken up to be more representative and more competitive.

Sounds like a strange thing to do, what are the advantages meant to be?

Its a stupid idea .

(July 16, 2014 at 2:15 am)Insanity Wrote: Sounds like a strange thing to do, what are the advantages meant to be?

One argument I've heard is to provide the current California with more representation in the U.S. Senate. The example given was that California and Wyoming share the same number of Senators. Seems this billionaire doesn't understand why our bicameral legislation was set up to begin with.

Another talking point I've heard is the promise that more local governance will solve congestion and water problems. It's bullshit of course because nobody can connect the dots on how more arbitrarily drawn borders will produce more water and better transportation options. If anything it will exacerbate the problems by artificially creating more negotiating entities.

This is being proposed by a Silicon Valley billionaire. I can only surmise that the actual motivation is to keep Silicon Valley wealth in Silicon Valley and not be burdened with having to help support the rest of the state.

If California is divided into 6 states, who would it favor - the Republicans or the Democrats?

(July 16, 2014 at 2:15 am)Insanity Wrote: Sounds like a strange thing to do, what are the advantages meant to be?

Like N.Y. and other populous states California is grossly under represented per capital in Congress compared to your average state. Because of the way the electoral college is set up, that under-representation carries through to the presidential elections.

California, like most states is not uniform in it's politics across the state. There are areas in California larger than most states both in populous and landmass that disagree with the majority of California voters consistently. Those voters are essential unrepresented federally.

For the rest of us there's one advantage to splitting California: it would allow Congress to break up the 9th Federal Judaical Circuit which is grossly oversize containing: California, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. Previous attempts have always floundered over which poor state would get stuck sharing the circuit with California.

---- None the less, six states sounds excessive.

There are poorer parts of California that would be hurt economically by the change. Also, state governments aren't free and five new ones would be expensive for the people of California to maintain.

Many people have batted around the idea that there ought logically to be a North California and a Southern California and that some of the agricultural parts of the state ought to be given to surrounding states.

Similarly, it's been suggested that the portion of Oregon east of the Cascades and the dry southeastern portion of Washington ought to be part of Idaho for political and geographic uniformity.

(July 16, 2014 at 9:20 am)John S Wrote: If California is divided into 6 states, who would it favor - the Republicans or the Democrats?

I really don't know. It is a democratic state, but I'm sure there are plenty of thick conservative areas too. I'd like an answer to this myself.

(July 16, 2014 at 8:46 am)Cato Wrote:

(July 16, 2014 at 2:15 am)Insanity Wrote: Sounds like a strange thing to do, what are the advantages meant to be?

One argument I've heard is to provide the current California with more representation in the U.S. Senate. The example given was that California and Wyoming share the same number of Senators. Seems this billionaire doesn't understand why our bicameral legislation was set up to begin with.

Another talking point I've heard is the promise that more local governance will solve congestion and water problems. It's bullshit of course because nobody can connect the dots on how more arbitrarily drawn borders will produce more water and better transportation options. If anything it will exacerbate the problems by artificially creating more negotiating entities.

This is being proposed by a Silicon Valley billionaire. I can only surmise that the actual motivation is to keep Silicon Valley wealth in Silicon Valley and not be burdened with having to help support the rest of the state.

Sounds about right.

I'd suggest a move in the opposite direction. Every blue state with a large urban population should annex a big, sparsely populated fly over state. This should enable the popular vote to come closer to the quaint old electoral vote. I think California should be able to absorb Arizona, Utah and Nevada. As the governor of this new mega-state my first act would be to create a state holiday for a gay pride day

How is increasing the 'overhead' by 5 more sets of governors/state legislators/regulators/bureaucrats/administrators going to help anything ?

How about reorganizing the country around the 25 largest Nielsen DMAs ?

That would cut state governance overhead by up to half. That makes a whole lot more sense.