Current Events > New California declares "independence" from rest of state

(+) Yeah! (+)

So a bunch of nobodies with no real connections and no legal authority declared something? This is less binding than the Conch Republic.
---

Annihilated posted...

Not to mention it will be nice to have more conservative representation in the senate and the electoral vote.

it would help democrats, probably

because SD and SJ are there, the new state would be another sort of nevada or colorado style swing state and definitely not radically right wing

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/the-case-for-new-california.html

2014 #CAGov

New California:
Brown (D) - 52.5%
Kashkari (R) - 47.5%

California:
Brown - 69.0%
Kashkari - 31.0%

2016
New California: Clinton +14.8%, Harris +16.5%
California: Clinton +47.0%, Harris +30.2%

2012
New California: Obama +7.8%, Feinstein +9.4%
California: Obama +40.2%, Feinstein +42.6%
---

I like N. Calif.
---

This is stupid and won't happen, simply because it'd start the avalanche of other states declaring the same thing. Between Florida, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc all of them have a "justified" reason to split. But none of them will, nor should they
---

Balrog0 posted...

Annihilated posted...

Not to mention it will be nice to have more conservative representation in the senate and the electoral vote.

it would help democrats, probably

because SD and SJ are there, the new state would be another sort of nevada or colorado style swing state and definitely not radically right wing

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/the-case-for-new-california.html

2014 #CAGov

New California:
Brown (D) - 52.5%
Kashkari (R) - 47.5%

California:
Brown - 69.0%
Kashkari - 31.0%

2016
New California: Clinton +14.8%, Harris +16.5%
California: Clinton +47.0%, Harris +30.2%

2012
New California: Obama +7.8%, Feinstein +9.4%
California: Obama +40.2%, Feinstein +42.6%

I had a feeling about this since they were dumb enough to include San Diego and Santa Clara counties.

Moreover, the idiots put Los Angeles in the wrong county on their map lol

I just always loved the Idea of NOR CAL

Anything below SF can be SO CAL, but please take Stockton.
---

Thrillwell posted...

I just always loved the Idea of NOR CAL

Anything below SF can be SO CAL, but please take Stockton.

The bay or SF? Because youre eliminating SJ, Santa Cruz etc

Balrog0 posted...

Annihilated posted...

Not to mention it will be nice to have more conservative representation in the senate and the electoral vote.

it would help democrats, probably

because SD and SJ are there, the new state would be another sort of nevada or colorado style swing state and definitely not radically right wing

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/the-case-for-new-california.html

2014 #CAGov

New California:
Brown (D) - 52.5%
Kashkari (R) - 47.5%

California:
Brown - 69.0%
Kashkari - 31.0%

2016
New California: Clinton +14.8%, Harris +16.5%
California: Clinton +47.0%, Harris +30.2%

2012
New California: Obama +7.8%, Feinstein +9.4%
California: Obama +40.2%, Feinstein +42.6%

I don't have any expectations that it will become a permanent red state, but the coastal cities make the rest of California unswingable. It's also a case against the popular vote since it proves that politicians govern almost exclusively based on city wants and city problems.

Annihilated posted...

It's also a case against the popular vote since it proves that politicians govern almost exclusively based on city wants and city problems.

What do you mean by this? This urban vs rural tension is present in every state (and across the country) but the vast majority of the time the rural areas are the ones who get disproportionate representation. Over half of the state lives in the LA and SF metro areas, and over 95% of the population of California lives in an urban, rather than rural, area.

I mean yeah I guess it sucks but whats the alternative? have separate states for cities and the country? subordinate city voters to the will of rural voters, like other places do?
---

CruelBuffalo posted...

Thrillwell posted...

I just always loved the Idea of NOR CAL

Anything below SF can be SO CAL, but please take Stockton.

The bay or SF? Because youre eliminating SJ, Santa Cruz etc

Nor Cal wants Santa Cruz for nostalgia
---

Annihilated posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Annihilated posted...

Not to mention it will be nice to have more conservative representation in the senate and the electoral vote.

it would help democrats, probably

because SD and SJ are there, the new state would be another sort of nevada or colorado style swing state and definitely not radically right wing

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/the-case-for-new-california.html

2014 #CAGov

New California:
Brown (D) - 52.5%
Kashkari (R) - 47.5%

California:
Brown - 69.0%
Kashkari - 31.0%

2016
New California: Clinton +14.8%, Harris +16.5%
California: Clinton +47.0%, Harris +30.2%

2012
New California: Obama +7.8%, Feinstein +9.4%
California: Obama +40.2%, Feinstein +42.6%

I don't have any expectations that it will become a permanent red state, but the coastal cities make the rest of California unswingable. It's also a case against the popular vote since it proves that politicians govern almost exclusively based on city wants and city problems.

Youre right millions of people should have their votes quieted for the thousands in rural areas

Balrog0 posted...

Annihilated posted...

It's also a case against the popular vote since it proves that politicians govern almost exclusively based on city wants and city problems.

What do you mean by this? This urban vs rural tension is present in every state (and across the country) but the vast majority of the time the rural areas are the ones who get disproportionate representation. Over half of the state lives in the LA and SF metro areas, and over 95% of the population of California lives in an urban, rather than rural, area.

I mean yeah I guess it sucks but whats the alternative? have separate states for cities and the country? subordinate city voters to the will of rural voters, like other places do?

The bottom line is that California is just too big to be a state. It can stand to lose a few cities and still have more population than a quarter of the countries in the world. The idea that "disproportionate" representation for rural areas means "too much" representation is hogwash. That just means they get a sliver instead of a hair. There is absolutely no influence that they have on cities except maybe that they have to set their own minimum wage instead of mandating one for the entire state.

Annihilated posted...

The idea that "disproportionate" representation for rural areas means "too much" representation is hogwash.

why?

Annihilated posted...

That just means they get a sliver instead of a hair.

out of the 120 state legislators in california, around 30 serve in the "rural caucus" and come from rural areas

if it were based on population, it would only be about 10-12 or even less
---

So they want to flood the senate with more democrats. Works for me.
---