Six Californias

[Jenny A]

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.