Poll of the Day > Do you support breaking up California?

(+) Yeah! (+)

That really has very little to do with what I said. I know they are determined by population, but they aren't anywhere close to being proportional across all states. It's bullshit. So is winner-take-all, it drives so many people away from voting that I don't really think we get an accurate representation of how the country feels.

Peterass posted...

Chewster posted...

California doesn't have that many electoral votes when you consider that they have almost 80 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times as many electoral votes.

Electoral votes already are determined by the population and can change when the census is done.

ClarkDuke posted...

You shouldn't speak on matters you know nothing about, ok?

---

Chewster posted...

and rural states

That's a thing?
---

Uh how else would you describe Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc.?

Chewster posted...

Uh how else would you describe Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc.?

A state of the United States of America. There's no such thing as "rural states" There's only rural areas.
---

A state is an area. But regardless it seems like you know what I meant and are just splitting hairs over semantics

Chewster posted...

A state is an area. But regardless it seems like you know what I meant and are just splitting hairs over semantics

Those "rural" states still have industrialized areas too.
---

ClarkDuke posted...

WarGreymon77 posted...

It would certainly benefit the United States. No state should have that many electoral votes.

You shouldn't speak on matters you know nothing about, ok?

You should get a better gimmick, ok?
---

Having an "industrialized" area doesn't mean having a big population though. It should've been clear from my post that I'm making a point about population numbers. There are dozens of US cities that have higher populations than some states.

Chewster posted...

Having an "industrialized" area doesn't mean having a big population though. It should've been clear from my post that I'm making a point about population numbers. There are dozens of US cities that have higher populations than some states.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rural
---

I don't know what your point is

Yellow posted...

The whole electoral college concept is stupid and outdated.

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people's votes just "don't matter".

This country needs a direct democracy facelift in general, I'll say it until I'm blue in the face.

Urban voters would win literally every time, and people from rural areas would never have a say in any election.

Revelation34 posted...

I have literally never heard of anybody mentioning this before this thread.

It's happened like 10 other times since 1990 lol

Chewster posted...

I don't know what your point is

The definition of rural has nothing to do with population size.
---

Lol yes it does GTFO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_area#United_States

United States Census Bureau: The Census Bureau definitions (new to the 2000 census), which are based on population density, defines rural areas as all territory outside Census Bureau-defined urbanized areas and urban clusters.

An urbanized area consists of a central surrounding areas whose population ("urban nucleus") is greater than 50,000. They may or may not contain individual cities with 50,000 or more; rather, they must have a core with a population density generally exceeding 1,000 persons per square mile; and may contain adjoining territory with at least 500 persons per square mile (other towns outside an urbanized area whose population exceeds 2,500).
Thus, rural areas comprise open country and settlements with fewer than 2,500 residents; areas designated as rural can have population densities as high as 999 per square mile or as low as 1 person per square mile.[4]

Such a proposal comes up on the ballots every ten years or so.

I'm in favor of forming Jefferson. But in all honesty California is a bunch of regions that have little in the way of anything in common. The people in the Bay Area have little in common with the folks in the Central Valley, and LA has nothing in common with the people in Del Norte.

If it was a two state split I'd be in favor of this.
https://imgur.com/AZhKwMZ

Three state split would be this.
https://imgur.com/8n0fjrR
---

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

Such a proposal comes up on the ballots every ten years or so.

I'm in favor of forming Jefferson. But in all honesty California is a bunch of regions that have little in the way of anything in common. The people in the Bay Area have little in common with the folks in the Central Valley, and LA has nothing in common with the people in Del Norte.

If it was a two state split I'd be in favor of this.
https://imgur.com/AZhKwMZ

Three state split would be this.
https://imgur.com/8n0fjrR

You could say this about any state with a metro area.
---

PuddingBoy posted...

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

Such a proposal comes up on the ballots every ten years or so.

I'm in favor of forming Jefferson. But in all honesty California is a bunch of regions that have little in the way of anything in common. The people in the Bay Area have little in common with the folks in the Central Valley, and LA has nothing in common with the people in Del Norte.

If it was a two state split I'd be in favor of this.
https://imgur.com/AZhKwMZ

Three state split would be this.
https://imgur.com/8n0fjrR

You could say this about any state with a metro area.

California is more like several regions all opposed to each other. NYC dominating Upstate New York is close, but the animosity in California goes pretty deep. From the simple Northern California vs Southern California to even regions against regions.

https://imgur.com/c0fn6da

Regionally it can be divided up like this. But even then San Diego and LA are generally opposed to one another and Sacramento and Bakersfield pull different directions in some ways. Even the people in the Far North have more in common with the people across the border in Southern Oregon then the people in the Northern Sacramento Valley.
---

Chewster posted...

Lol yes it does GTFO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_area#United_States

United States Census Bureau: The Census Bureau definitions (new to the 2000 census), which are based on population density, defines rural areas as all territory outside Census Bureau-defined urbanized areas and urban clusters.

An urbanized area consists of a central surrounding areas whose population ("urban nucleus") is greater than 50,000. They may or may not contain individual cities with 50,000 or more; rather, they must have a core with a population density generally exceeding 1,000 persons per square mile; and may contain adjoining territory with at least 500 persons per square mile (other towns outside an urbanized area whose population exceeds 2,500).
Thus, rural areas comprise open country and settlements with fewer than 2,500 residents; areas designated as rural can have population densities as high as 999 per square mile or as low as 1 person per square mile.[4]

Read the dictionary.
---

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

Nope, it's not even hiding the fact that it's trying to carve up California to gift votes to the GOP in the Electoral College.

It wouldn't even accomplish that though. It would create a cluster of Oregons, rural conservative states controlled by liberal urban metropolises. In addition to creating 4 more blue senators.

Population based voting is moronic anyway. Large swathes of the population don't give half a shit about creating policies or systems that are sustainable or effective in the long term. Most people are content with running shit into the ground as long as it benefits them in the short run.
---

No

BlackPortrait posted...

Urban voters would win literally every time, and people from rural areas would never have a say in any election.

And we fixed that by giving them a grossly disproportionate voice in elections. Seems fair. I mean, I live in a city therefore my vote should be worth 1/10th of the guy's in farmland USA.

BlackPortrait posted...

I support dropping California into the ocean, but I suppose I'm willing to compromise here.

I'm all for this, at least the west coast from LA to San Fran. That would clear out about 80% of the garbage there.

I remember as a kid being told they'd have "the big one" and 1/2 of it would fall into the ocean, I'm still hoping for it to happen any time now.
---

The Southern states "broke up" long ago pre Civil War!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zeus posted...

Except no, the electoral system makes sense. You're assuming that the nation was intended to be a direct democracy when that was literally never the case. You want to play chess like checkers, basically.

This is the problem, you think an election should be a game, not a representation.

It is a representation. However, because the representation doesn't get you the result you want, you want to change the rules.

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

Except no, the electoral system makes sense. You're assuming that the nation was intended to be a direct democracy when that was literally never the case. You want to play chess like checkers, basically.

It can make "sense" It just doesn't work since nobody's vote matters since only the delegate votes matter.

And the delegates vote based on the will of the people.

Chewster posted...

That really has very little to do with what I said. I know they are determined by population, but they aren't anywhere close to being proportional across all states. It's bullshit. So is winner-take-all, it drives so many people away from voting that I don't really think we get an accurate representation of how the country feels.

It's supposed to balance influence, not perfectly represent the proportions. If it did perfectly represent the proportions then there wouldn't be balance.
---

Zeus posted...

It is a representation. However, because the representation doesn't get you the result you want, you want to change the rules.

You guys are the ones who rigged the elections to no longer represent all people equally.

Zeus posted...

It's supposed to balance influence, not perfectly represent the proportions. If it did perfectly represent the proportions then there wouldn't be balance.

Sounds like communism to me. You want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
---

WarGreymon77 posted...

ClarkDuke posted...

WarGreymon77 posted...

It would certainly benefit the United States. No state should have that many electoral votes.

You shouldn't speak on matters you know nothing about, ok?

You should get a better gimmick, ok?

What gimmick, ok?
---

Zeus posted...

It's supposed to balance influence, not perfectly represent the proportions. If it did perfectly represent the proportions then there wouldn't be balance.

It doesn't balance things though, it skews towards smaller states (hey Revelation in case it's not clear I mean "smaller" by population even though the more common definitions of "small" refer to physical size, oops I'm an idiot).

Having more accurate proportions still wouldn't be as "imbalanced" as you think given that almost every state is winner-take-all. So it's basically doubly skewed. I don't see why we can't at least compromise on one of those things: Either make the representation proportional, or leave it as is but divide the electoral votes in each state proportional to how candidates performed.

The way it is now you can have somebody win a few key states by a couple thousand votes each but people will bitch otherwise that "California and New York just decide it for the country", as if a few thousand votes is really that much of each state's population

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zeus posted...

It is a representation. However, because the representation doesn't get you the result you want, you want to change the rules.

You guys are the ones who rigged the elections to no longer represent all people equally.

No longer? lolwut? These are the rules from the beginning. There was *never* a direct national vote, you always had electors. The biggest change is how the vice president is decided since it used to just go to the runner-up, but that was changed back when Jefferson -- the THIRD president -- was in office.

As for "you guys," I've never held political office, let alone held it in the late 1700s/early 1800s when these things were put together.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zeus posted...

It's supposed to balance influence, not perfectly represent the proportions. If it did perfectly represent the proportions then there wouldn't be balance.

Sounds like communism to me. You want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

Just jamming words together and hoping to make a coherent sentence?
---

I support breaking the whole thing off the continent and letting it sink.
---

Decoy77 posted...

I remember as a kid being told they'd have "the big one" and 1/2 of it would fall into the ocean, I'm still hoping for it to happen any time now.

It will never happen.

Zeus posted...

And the delegates vote based on the will of the people.

Heh.
---

not goona happen.

cause breaking up is hard to do....
---