world

Tech billionaire says his plan to break up California ready for voters

37 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

37 Comments
Login to comment

What a waist of time and money!

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Having lived in California, I agree that some partitioning would be a good idea. It is an enormous state and the varied interests are not fully represented because of the huge influence of LA and SF. The northern 1/2 of the state is almost entirely rural and forested, the inner valley is agricultural and highly conservative. These latter groups get shafted due to low population. Also dividing California will lead to 4 new senators which will bring more power in the Senate.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This has been going on for a very long time. I remember the very northern counties of California and southern counties of Oregon wanted to establish the State of Jefferson. Years ago I owned acreage in one of California's northernmost counties and got to know some of the folks. Most involved were quite pragmatic and were libertarian. They had some very valid points (i.e. these counties are very lightly populated and thus they did not have proper representation). On the other hand the counties were recipients of state funds, which would have been lost if this actually occurred. I think these guys are still somewhat active but they lost a lot of steam.

This was one of the issues where there were good and valid points but also some serious drawbacks (mostly financial). I had (and still have) mixed feelings about this.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

First I've heard of this, but I think it's a good idea. The current state of California's population awards it 55 Electoral College electors. 55 out of total of 538. That's 17 more than 2nd place Texas, and 26 more than 3rd places Florida and New York. A single state currently has over 10% of the Electoral College electors. I think that's too many for one state to have. But this is not up to the other states, or the federal government, or to foreign nationals. It's up to the voters of California.

If the voters in California wish to break up their state into several mostly rural and mostly urban states, I wish them the best of luck.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

I remember talk of this from the 1960s at least, maybe even the 1950s. I think the idea then was just to split into two states, Northern, and Southern California. Since then there have been huge changes in population, lots of formerly agricultural areas are now residential, etc. I have no real idea really whether splitting would be good or not in the long run but it will be interesting to see what happens.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

First I heard of this as well. As long as each split part has a self-sustaining source of revenue, then I don't see the problem. Generally, smaller is better in terms of managing societies.

The renaming of the split parts should be as follows:

Farmafornia

Techafornia

Botoxafornia

12 ( +13 / -1 )

The current state of California's population awards it 55 Electoral College electors. 55 out of total of 538. That's 17 more than 2nd place Texas, and 26 more than 3rd places Florida and New York. A single state currently has over 10% of the Electoral College electors.

California: 39.5 million people.

USA: 325.7 million people.

Percentage of population in California: 12%

Percentage of electoral college votes California holds: 10%

California is already under-represented in the electoral college based on their population.

I think that's too many for one state to have.

Since you think underrepresented California should have less electoral votes, it would appear you're suggesting Californians should be treated as lesser than other Americans.

And the right likes to pretend they are democratic.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Give it back to Mexico!

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Strangerland - Since you think underrepresented California should have less electoral votes, it would appear you're suggesting Californians should be treated as lesser than other Americans.

According to the existing rules, the current state of California has 55 electors. They're not underrepresented, according to the rules.

However, there seems to be 600,000+ Californian's who believe they are currently underrepresented, or poorly represented, or misrepresented within California, and would like to separate California into several smaller states.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Wow, I gave runner3 a point and it raised him 2.

Splitting a lot of states would be a good idea.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

We have two family homes in California and they would not want to see it divided into three.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Stranger, you've got that backwards - breaking up CA would increase the number of electoral votes by the number of additional senators added. A triway split would thus result in four more senators and thus four more electoral votes.

I'm writing this from San Jose now. There seems to be a slight chill as the arrogance of many high-tech companies collide with reality. Still, most people are as happy as usual; I guess the same is true across the state, and those who are dissatisfied really bring no solutions, just rearranging the furniture.

California will never split up.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

According to the existing rules, the current state of California has 55 electors. They're not underrepresented, according to the rules.

12% of the population, 10% of the votes, is underrepresented.

You seem to be trying to say there is a rule, which justifies the rule. Self-justification.

Unfortunately, self-justification is not democratic.

Stranger, you've got that backwards - breaking up CA would increase the number of electoral votes by the number of additional senators added.

I wasn't referring to the breaking up of California at all. I was reponding to arrestpaul's thoughts that that's too many for one state to have.

I'm writing this from San Jose now.

I'm not that far away from you right now!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

That never stopped the clam before. Should be good for a goofy conspiracy theory at the very least.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

what a goofball, waste of time and no benefit

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It's also ridiculous that states with tiny populations are represented by the same number of senators as California, New York and Texas. So while you're at it, don't stop with California. Even if only limited to the continental US, 48 states are too many. It has been proposed that 7 or 8 regions would do the job just as well, streamline legislation and save taxpayers a bundle.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Percentage of population in California: 12%

Percentage of electoral college votes California holds: 10%

More importantly, breaking California into three states would give it more representation in the Senate, which is where "population vs. representation" imbalance is most pronounced. (Each state gets two senators irrespective of population.) As it stands:

Wyoming, population 582,658: 2 senators

California, population 38,332,521: 2 senators

This gives each Wyoming resident 65 times the Senate representation of each California resident.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Splitting up into Rich California and Poor California ?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

“It's also ridiculous that states with tiny populations are represented by the same number of senators as California, New York and Texas.”

That is by design and is balanced out by the House of Representatives. (For those not familiar with US history, study up on the Connecticut Compromise.)

As an aside, I received my California Statewide Direct Primary Election absentee ballot today. So far I have just skimmed the list of the 27 candidates for Governor but I don’t think I’ve heard of any of them. If the state were to be split up maybe it would increase the chances of knowing enough about candidates and issues to make an informed vote.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

On second look, at the booklet of candidate statements etc that came with the ballot, I found two candidates for governor that I have actually heard of before. Some of the statements are very informative, some, um, less so. For instance the one that says in its entirety “Why not!” That one I don’t think I’ll bother going to his Facebook page to find out more, ha ha.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Will Orange County become a State within a State the way Vatican is?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Will Orange County become a State within a State the way Vatican is?

Looking to be Papa Pope?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Don't divide the state. That's throwing the baby out with the cruddy bath water. It sidesteps the real problem: a nationwide electoral system that is unfair to most people anywhere on the political spectrum. A system that has fallen prey to the rich (and thereby powerful), whatever their persuasion. Bipartisan discussion of ideas like rank-based voting, campaign finance restrictions, and a nationwide and agreed-upon algorithm for fairly delineating voting districts is the way to go. Get it started. It can be done.

The only people who benefit from bipartisan bickering are the extremist charlatans at the top. Give these scum the boot!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Will Orange County become a State within a state?

Sounds like it would be pretty liberal if it did. This from the Orange County Register:

“Most Orange County residents disapprove of President Trump’s job performance, strongly support gun control, support a path to permanent U.S. residency for undocumented immigrants and are willing to tax themselves to fight homelessness, a new Chapman University poll released this week shows

On the issue of Trump and how he’s handling his job as president, 63 percent disapprove, while 37 percent approve.

Meanwhile, 60 percent say the country is headed in the wrong direction, while 31 percent believe the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress vs. 27 percent who prefer Republican control.

Even more – 71 percent – say government doesn’t do enough to regulate access to guns, while 29 percent say current gun control laws go too far.

The poll results are one of several recent signs that Orange County voters are shifting toward more moderate-left positions, the authors said. The poll comes less than two years after local voters broke in favor of Hillary Clinton over Trump, the first time since 1936 that Orange County favored a Democrat for president.

“It’s one more indication we are no longer a red county,” said Fred Smoller, a Chapman associate professor of political science and lead researcher for the poll.

“I’m surprised to see these things in Orange County.”

Sounds like a liberal oasis. Anecdotes incoming...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Looking to be Papa Pope?

More like peace and tranquility from liberals and Dems.

Sounds like it would be pretty liberal if it did. This from the Orange County Register:

“Most Orange County residents disapprove of President Trump’s job performance,

How many conservatives were interviewed? 2-3?

strongly support gun control, support a path to permanent U.S. residency for undocumented immigrants and are willing to tax themselves to fight homelessness, a new Chapman University poll released this week shows

Ahhhh, Chapman, now it all makes sense. Even in Texas you live a few liberals THINKING that it’s going to turn blue....yeah, good luck with that.

On the issue of Trump and how he’s handling his job as president, 63 percent disapprove, while 37 percent approve.

Meanwhile, 60 percent say the country is headed in the wrong direction, while 31 percent believe the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress vs. 27 percent who prefer Republican control.

Even more – 71 percent – say government doesn’t do enough to regulate access to guns, while 29 percent say current gun control laws go too far.

The poll results are one of several recent signs that Orange County voters are shifting toward more moderate-left positions, the authors said. The poll comes less than two years after local voters broke in favor of Hillary Clinton over Trump, the first time since 1936 that Orange County favored a Democrat for president.

If that were true, OC would never have gone against sanctuary cities. I feel much better, once you said Chapman, you get more liberal then that school.

“It’s one more indication we are no longer a red county,” said Fred Smoller, a Chapman associate professor of political science and lead researcher for the poll.

“I’m surprised to see these things in Orange County.”

Yeah, me too.

https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/03/27/81919/orange-county-could-challenge-state-s-sanctuary-la/

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/380848-trump-gains-historically-yuge-ally-in-the-fight-against-californias

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Also dividing California will lead to 4 new senators which will bring more power in the Senate.

Which is why it is virtually certain to not pass a vote in Congress. Making the whole thing just a massive ego-driven show by Draper.

A single state currently has over 10% of the Electoral College electors. I think that's too many for one state to have.

Which is one of many reasons why something needs to change with the Electoral College system.

But this is not up to the other states, or the federal government, or to foreign nationals. It's up to the voters of California.

As the article states, this would require the approval of Congress. So, YES it IS up to the other states.

Since you think underrepresented California should have less electoral votes, it would appear you're suggesting Californians should be treated as lesser than other Americans.

That doesn't appear to be what was said. The suggestion seems to be that all those electoral votes concentrated in one state was problematic. While if California split into 3 states the same number of population based electoral votes would be spread between those 3 states, which each would have different political climates.

This gives each Wyoming resident 65 times the Senate representation of each California resident.

And that is the way it was specifically designed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Percentage of population in California: 12%

Percentage of electoral college votes California holds: 10%

More importantly, breaking California into three states would give it more representation in the Senate, which is where "population vs. representation" imbalance is most pronounced. (Each state gets two senators irrespective of population.) As it stands: 

Wyoming, population 582,658: 2 senators

California, population 38,332,521: 2 senators

This gives each Wyoming resident 65 times the Senate representation of each California resident.

How many representatives does Wyoming have? How many does California? Why didn’t you mention that?

If both the upper and lower houses were based on population, NY TC FL and CA would decide everything.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If both the upper and lower houses were based on population, NY TC FL and CA would decide everything.

But the left thinks it perfectly makes normal sense. Ahhh, who cares what smaller less populated States think, their insignificant, their opinions don’t count.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Being from L.A. and a huge sports fan, I have never been excited about sharing the same state as people from the Bay Area. I am sure they feel the same way about us savages to the south.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Which California Orange County will be in? I thought some organization was working to makkke California independent from USA. Can Nooorth afford losing Orange County and Los Angels County?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How about state income tax? North has to increase. Two other states may decrease.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Income from sport revenue. Central and southern Calif. Increasing. North decreasing.

International trade. Long Beach is not in north. More shipping business in LA county.

Tourism from Asia. Hollywood or silicon Valley?

List go on and on.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yeah, well. Californians don't want it.

This nonsense has gone one since literally the beginning of our statehood.Partitioners have tried—and obviously failed—200 times to divide the State.

See here: https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/summer-2012-north-south/splitsville-californians-have-tried-and-failed-200-times

Always the same reasons -- too big, too diverse, lack of representation to those on the out in Sacramento, bla bla bla.

There is a reason why we stay formed and united. Look at the map. See that big central valley. Yea. CA is that central valley ringed with mountains. Since then, we've just knitted ourselves together. Just look where the population is. And look where the water comes from. Those eastern mountains. I think theyz called Sir Erra No Vader or sumptin'...

Ain't gonna happen.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

And look where the water comes from.

Oregon. :-)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

RecklessApr. 13  10:46 am JST

It is an enormous state and the varied interests are not fully represented because of the huge influence of LA and SF. The northern 1/2 of the state is almost entirely rural and forested, the inner valley is agricultural and highly conservative. These latter groups get shafted due to low population.

When you don't get what you want because you are a smaller group of people than the people who want something different, that's not "not being fully represented", nor is it "getting shafted". It's democracy.

Republicans can't give convincing reasons to the youth of the US to vote for them, so the solution presented is to arbitrarily invent extra votes for Republicans in the Senate.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I was taught in school that California had already been broken into 3 States after Zorro retired. How many more does the world need ?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The libs can have SF Silicone Valley and LA and the Conservatives can have all the farmlands including Gilroy and Fern.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites