13 votes

California? Or Cali-Three-Nia? Proposal to split state will be on ballot in November.

23 comments

  1. [16]
    cfabbro
    (edited )
    Link
    Hmmm, why do I get the distinct impression this isn’t about “serving the populace” as Mr. Draper claims? And there it is. Backdoor gerrymandering of an entire State instead of just doing it at the...

    Hmmm, why do I get the distinct impression this isn’t about “serving the populace” as Mr. Draper claims?

    In the political sphere, the measure would create two reliably blue states and one swing state, analysts say. And by creating more Senate seats, it would also increase the influence of current-day California in Congress.

    And there it is. Backdoor gerrymandering of an entire State instead of just doing it at the district level like it has been done before. Lovely.

    IMO Mr. Draper would be better serving his country by putting his tremendous resources toward pushing for rebalancing the number of representative seats and districts / capita, so metropolitan areas get the proportional amount of representation they deserve, rather than attempting to gerrymander through breaking up the States themselves.

    9 votes
    1. [5]
      enso
      Link Parent
      While I think that this is a valid concern, California is home to about 1 in 8 people in the US. Is it really reasonable to have that number of people under a single state level government?...

      While I think that this is a valid concern, California is home to about 1 in 8 people in the US. Is it really reasonable to have that number of people under a single state level government?

      Looking at this map it looks to split the population unto about thirds.

      14 votes
      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. Dot
          Link Parent
          But why in the world do we have two Dakotas!?!

          But why in the world do we have two Dakotas!?!

      2. [3]
        cfabbro
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        That’s a valid point, but California having 1 in 8 people in the entire US is a bit misleading as a line of reasoning for breaking it up IMO. How does California’s population compare to the other...

        That’s a valid point, but California having 1 in 8 people in the entire US is a bit misleading as a line of reasoning for breaking it up IMO.

        How does California’s population compare to the other coastal states (excluding Alaska of course)? I think that needs to be accounted for since coasts, especially warm ones like with Texas, Florida, etc. are where people naturally tend to congregate. How does it compare in representatives per capita to the other states? Where does it sit on the Happiness index? What does polling say about poeple’s feelings of being represented by their State government officials compared to other States? etc...

        I think those are things to consider as well before outright declaring the State unwieldy and untenable merely because of its size and population.

        3 votes
        1. [2]
          Edes
          Link Parent
          You could split up Texas and it wouldn't be as reliably red as the Californias would be reliably blue, so you could also argue that not splitting up Texas is gerrymandering.

          You could split up Texas and it wouldn't be as reliably red as the Californias would be reliably blue, so you could also argue that not splitting up Texas is gerrymandering.

          2 votes
          1. NoCoolUsrrname
            Link Parent
            I'm not sure that's the case. Of the Californias Draper is promoting, 2 out of the 3 would likely be red. California isn't really blue; large percentages of the population centers are. It's more...

            I'm not sure that's the case. Of the Californias Draper is promoting, 2 out of the 3 would likely be red. California isn't really blue; large percentages of the population centers are. It's more varying degrees of purple than anything else. People tend to forget that two very prominent Republican representatives are from Southern California.

    2. [6]
      vexacia
      Link Parent
      The senate is structurally impossible to make representative of populations. California (population ~39,540,000) having the same Senate representation as e.g. Wyoming (population ~580,000, or...

      The senate is structurally impossible to make representative of populations. California (population ~39,540,000) having the same Senate representation as e.g. Wyoming (population ~580,000, or around 39,000,000 fewer people) is inexcusable, but here we are.

      Without major amendments to the constitution that either abolish or restructure the Senate into a truly representative body, breaking large states into smaller states is the only way to even attempt to ameliorate the comically hideous proportionality problems the senate presents in terms of political representation.

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        Crespyl
        Link Parent
        Isn't that by design? The Senate doesn't represent populations, it represents the individual States. We have the House for population-proportional representation (which itself could use some...

        The senate is structurally impossible to make representative of populations.

        Isn't that by design? The Senate doesn't represent populations, it represents the individual States. We have the House for population-proportional representation (which itself could use some re-balancing, certainly).

        6 votes
        1. vexacia
          Link Parent
          Something functioning by design doesn't mean that design is good or intelligent or rational or in any way sociopolitically relevant to our modern civilization.

          Something functioning by design doesn't mean that design is good or intelligent or rational or in any way sociopolitically relevant to our modern civilization.

          2 votes
      2. [3]
        cfabbro
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Yeah, I understand that which is why I mentioned that Mr. Draper should probably focus on helping with rebalancing representation / capita instead of breaking up the State... which applies to both...

        Yeah, I understand that which is why I mentioned that Mr. Draper should probably focus on helping with rebalancing representation / capita instead of breaking up the State... which applies to both the Senate, potentially achieved through Constitutional amendments, as well as in the House, achieved through simply rebalancing State apportionment.

        1. [2]
          abbenm
          Link Parent
          Splitting the state would help rebalance representation and it's more likely to work. I only wish they would be a bit more bold and consider, say, six states. California will still be wildly...

          that Mr. Draper should probably focus on helping with rebalancing representation / capita instead of breaking up the State.

          Splitting the state would help rebalance representation and it's more likely to work. I only wish they would be a bit more bold and consider, say, six states. California will still be wildly underrepresented in terms of voting power with just three states and we will potentially have to revisit the issue again.

          1 vote
    3. [4]
      hightrix
      Link Parent
      I read this yesterday and after thinking about it a bit I have a question for you: Isn't the current state of California more gerrymandered than this proposal would create? The reasoning behind...

      I read this yesterday and after thinking about it a bit I have a question for you: Isn't the current state of California more gerrymandered than this proposal would create?

      The reasoning behind this is that currently in CA, republican voters have no voice in Presidential elections. If this proposal goes through and the split happens, republicans will have a voice in at least 1 of the 3 new states. That seems less gerrymandered than the current situation.

      While I realize this proposal could make the political landscape worse for Democrats, it does seem better for democracy as a whole in terms of Presidential elections at least.

      1 vote
      1. [3]
        cfabbro
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Okay. So just to be clear, I get that splitting the State is a potentially practical way to redress some of the imbalance (with regards to Senate seats and the Electoral College)... However, is...

        Okay. So just to be clear, I get that splitting the State is a potentially practical way to redress some of the imbalance (with regards to Senate seats and the Electoral College)... However, is that really a good way to approach the situation? IMO, it's winning a battle but potentially losing the war as a result in that it solves some of the issues for the State of California but potentially diffuses the issue enough in peoples' minds that a Constitutional Amendment and Reapportionment to actually properly address the underlying issue of imbalance in representatives / capita and Electoral college votes / capita get pushed to the side for longer.

        Trump being elected President is a direct result of this imbalance and I think him being elected despite receiving so many fewer votes than Clinton has really brought this issue to the fore in many peoples' minds. If California were to go through with this measure of splitting the State, the results might benefit the next Presidential election but it does not address the underlying problem at all... and in some ways makes things worse, particularly for Californians as the new States would essentially be gerrymandered in favor of Democrats at the level of State governance.

        Which is why I said that ultimately, I think Mr. Draper would be better serving his country by putting his tremendous resources toward pushing for rebalancing the number of representative seats and districts / capita and not splitting the State.

        I guess it ultimately boils down to a case of Pragmatism (taking wins where you can get them) vs Long Term planning (realizing that by taking the easier wins you may ultimately undermine the long term efforts). Does that make any sense?

        1. [2]
          hightrix
          Link Parent
          That absolutely makes sense, and thanks for your response! I don't have much to add other than these problems, popular vs electoral and proportional representation, are very complicated and not...

          That absolutely makes sense, and thanks for your response!

          I don't have much to add other than these problems, popular vs electoral and proportional representation, are very complicated and not easy to solve. I don't have any good ideas how better to progress our government and, truthfully, I don't really have a stance one way or the other on splitting CA into 3 states. This temporary solution may or may not be beneficial on both the short and long term, it's very hard to say.

          While I agree that both Middle and Northern CA would/could be easily gerrymandered to benefit Democrats, I suspect Southern CA will lean towards Republicans (SD, Inland Empire, Camp Pendleton, Coronado, Orange County all lean Republican).

          That said, I think we can all agree that politicians should be looking for long term solutions rather than vote-getting, short term political solutions.

          1 vote
          1. cfabbro
            Link Parent
            Isn't that the truth. This stuff is not easy to understand, let alone come up with solutions for, and so I do understand the case for pragmatic solutions like this ballot measure to split the...

            This temporary solution may or may not be beneficial on both the short and long term, it's very hard to say.

            Isn't that the truth. This stuff is not easy to understand, let alone come up with solutions for, and so I do understand the case for pragmatic solutions like this ballot measure to split the State. But as you said:

            I think we can all agree that politicians should be looking for long term solutions rather than vote-getting, short term political solutions.

            Which is exactly my worry with regards to this ballot measure... It's most definitely a short term solution to a more insidious problem with the way the Senate and Electoral College is set up.

  2. [6]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [5]
      Lovich
      Link Parent
      That does sound ideal but unfortunately I think it's a pipe dream unless you genetically engineer everyone to have more empathy. Everyone being self governed and only interacting when theirs...

      That does sound ideal but unfortunately I think it's a pipe dream unless you genetically engineer everyone to have more empathy. Everyone being self governed and only interacting when theirs consent on both sides is great until someone bigger than you says "fuck it" and just starts dumping their trash on your land or taking your stuff

      3 votes
      1. [4]
        vexacia
        Link Parent
        Good news: we're already genetically engineered to cooperate and empathize with one-another: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution Turns out it...

        unless you genetically engineer everyone to have more empathy.

        Good news: we're already genetically engineered to cooperate and empathize with one-another:
        https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution

        Turns out it comes naturally but gets nurtured out of us because it's bad for business.

        until someone bigger than you says "fuck it" and just starts dumping their trash on your land or taking your stuff

        That's why a fully decentralized societal model only works in the absence of something like capitalism, and why pro-capital anarchism is a completely self contradictory. Small government is only valid when said government has no challenger for social dominance (for example, private enterprise). Anarchism is only philosophically and rationally sound when it challenges all unjust hierarchies (e.g. anarchist communism), and perhaps the greatest and most unjust hierarchy of all is private property (the darling beloved of so-called "anarchist" capitalists).

        In order for a society without a state to function, the socioeconomic incentive structure must reward economic cooperation and penalize economic competition. Ergo, such a society must invariably be built on mutual aid and community assistance at every level. An injury to one must be an injury to all, and only under that line can a society prosper in the absence of hierarchy and remain resilient against hierarchy.

        edit: clarity

        3 votes
        1. [3]
          Lovich
          Link Parent
          That doesn't seem like individual self governance as described by the OP. Additionally I said more empathy, not giving us empathy in the first place. There is a high enough incidence of sociopathy...

          That doesn't seem like individual self governance as described by the OP. Additionally I said more empathy, not giving us empathy in the first place. There is a high enough incidence of sociopathy in the population, or just dealing with people that arent part of your in group, that a "fuck it" event like I described would not be a rare occurrence

          3 votes
          1. [2]
            vexacia
            Link Parent
            I disagree pretty strongly with the stance OP took, which is why I strongly made known the distinctions between their style of anti-statism and the requirements for a heallthy genuine state-free...

            That doesn't seem like individual self governance as described by the OP.

            I disagree pretty strongly with the stance OP took, which is why I strongly made known the distinctions between their style of anti-statism and the requirements for a heallthy genuine state-free society.

            2 votes
            1. Lovich
              Link Parent
              Ah well in that we are in agreement

              Ah well in that we are in agreement

  3. [2]
    Luna
    (edited )
    Link
    An interesting idea, and I can see the logic behind it. It would be easier to govern, though I really have to wonder how they would split the state up (not the boundaries, but the actual process...

    An interesting idea, and I can see the logic behind it. It would be easier to govern, though I really have to wonder how they would split the state up (not the boundaries, but the actual process of splitting it up). Ignoring the fact that now each state would have to spend millions building new state government buildings, organizing new departments, deciding what welfare programs to create, etc. there is also the question of how to split revenues and expenses for toll roads, public transit, state parks, and anything else that happens to cross the state line(s). There are also pension liabilities, state contracts that would not be completed, debts to pay off or distribute between each state (or offload onto the federal government), construction projects that could be jeapordized, and plenty more things that would cause tons of disputes. Even if there are no legal challenges in court or Congress, that could be what sinks this whole plan, as unlike splitting up a monopoly, you can't just cut off public services for months, if not years, and expect people to not get angry and create referendums to re-join as one state again.

    "Assuming this measure is approved by voters and the federal government and allowed by the courts," the state writes, "all tax collections and spending by the existing State of California would end."

    Does this mean that all discretionary spending is halted, with most government workers furloughed? Or does that refer to the fact that California would cease to exist, and that all spending would then be done by the newly-created states?

    Edit: One really good thing that could come about from this would be revising all the laws. Every state has tons of outdated laws that serve no purpose today, were just bad ideas from the start, or would be deemed unconstitutional in court, but are still on the books because nobody cares enough to remove them. A fresh start at the civil and criminal codes would be great for making the law explicitly clear and more modern.

    1 vote
    1. Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      The inclusion of the word "existing" in the phrase "all tax collections and spending by the existing State of California would end" leads me to believe it's the latter: the existing State of...

      Does this mean that all discretionary spending is halted, with most government workers furloughed? Or does that refer to the fact that California would cease to exist, and that all spending would then be done by the newly-created states?

      The inclusion of the word "existing" in the phrase "all tax collections and spending by the existing State of California would end" leads me to believe it's the latter: the existing State of California would no longer be taxing or spending because it would no longer exist. Meanwhile, the three new states would start taxing and spending.

      1 vote