Sfdebris.net

youtu.be/zsSVvh-KG3g

Couldn't they have come up with a better name, though?

This has been joked about for a long time already, but while I'm amused at the idea, I don't think it's going to happen. IIRC, the only other time something like this has happened, it was to separate West Virgina from Virginia, at the start of the Civil War to make it clear they weren't in on the whole Confederacy thing. And I can't help but think that the controlling government they're trying to get away from would keep them from doing so, and that the US government would probably prevent the split from happening, if nothing else to discourage other states from doing the same thing. I mean, pretty much every state that has a large urbanized area feels about the same way for largely the same reasons. Will we simply split into smaller and smaller states? While I consider myself to be generally libertarian, I can't help but be bothered a bit by that idea.

Or maybe this will go down, since we all know that there will be at least 52 stars between 2033 to 2079.

''And I can't help but think that the controlling government they're trying to get away from would keep them from doing so, and that the US government would probably prevent the split from happening, if nothing else to discourage other states from doing the same thing. I mean, pretty much every state that has a large urbanized area feels about the same way for largely the same reasons. Will we simply split into smaller and smaller states?''

I expect that to be the case. I grew up in Illinois and I've heard talk of breaking off the Chicago area from the rest of the state for various reasons. Generally, we are better together IMO, but hey, it's not like country folk and city folk have always loved each other, it's just that so many people moved to the cities in the 20th century.

BTW the other split off of a state was Maine from Massachusetts. South and North Dakota were both admitted at the same time from the Dakota territory.

Let's just forget everything and pretend that this passes the state legislature after a referendum or something. Now, it needs to get past the Congress. Given the current makeup of the senate, two new blue senators would be an unacceptable state of affairs for the Republicans. Thus, the only way it would pass Congress is if it is unlikely for "New California" would elect at most 1 blue senator. Given a quick look at electoral history in the counties that are to be in the new state, it looks purple to leaning blue to me, so I doubt it would pass.

Except it wouldn't be two guaranteed new Democrats. The area they want to split off would effectively split the pro-GOP rural and semi-rural regions from the liberal urban centers (with the exception of San Jose, since these people want Silicon Valley in their new pro-business utopia).

In 2012, the Democrats won many of these counties all the same. It's a real gamble to add a purple state at this tight a senate margin because it can make the margin drastically tighter.

I'd rather have a purple state than a solidly red or blue one, though.

Only if the Yes California secession happens. At that point the "independent" country of California will find secession movements in the north and the valley.

I'm more fond of the 3 Californias concept. The North (Jefferson), the valley (including most of southern California down to the ocean south of San Diego), and the coast (including most of the Bay Area and Sacramento)

Just three other thoughts:
1) It's unclear if the new state actually will have enough tax money to finance it's operations effectively.
2) It's going to cost piles and piles of money duplicating efforts across the states.
3) The new states will run into lots and lots of red tape because of the interstate commerce regulations.

With more splits, the situation would get even more costly. The only alternative I can think of ends up turning California into a miniature Canada, with transfer payments and a interstate bureaucracy. On the other hand, isn't that what the federal government is supposed to do?

This proposal isn't a statehood movement, it's a gerrymander. There's only one thing to do to gerrymanders. Pour salt on them and any "districting" process and replace them with at-large elections with party breakdown determined by proportional representation.

While we're on it, the admission process for states is one of the many bugs in the US Constitution. Leaving it up to Congress allows political concerns or willful neglect to override the right of citizens in six territories to be represented.

PerrySimm wrote:This proposal isn't a statehood movement, it's a gerrymander. There's only one thing to do to gerrymanders. Pour salt on them and any "districting" process and replace them with at-large elections with party breakdown determined by proportional representation.

While we're on it, the admission process for states is one of the many bugs in the US Constitution. Leaving it up to Congress allows political concerns or willful neglect to override the right of citizens in six territories to be represented.

The entire Yes California movement is based on the idea that the US at large does not represent the ideals and wishes of California and must become independent. How is New California any different other than being on a smaller scale?