Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Breaking Up California an Idea That Won't Go Away, For Good Reason

Californians would be better equipped to govern themselves fairly.

ssalonen/Wikipediassalonen/WikipediaYears ago, I was riding an Amtrak train from Virginia to New Jersey and was chatting with a couple from California, who were stunned at how rapidly the train went from one state to another. One can drive from southern Maine to North Carolina and pass through a dozen states, plus the District of Columbia, in roughly the same distance as going from San Diego to Crescent City, California.

Consider also that California's approximately 39 million population equals the total combined population of the nation's 22 smallest states. I can regale you with geographic trivia, but the closer you look, the harder it is to fathom why talks of breaking up California are not taken more seriously. California is too large in size and population to be governed fairly.

Note the word "fairly." There's plenty of debate about whether California is governed properly. I think not, but I cover the state Capitol and listen closely to the zaniness. I own a historic home that would have been flushed down the Feather River like detritus circling a toilet bowl, had the Oroville emergency spillway collapsed. California's leaders lavish public employees with benefits and build silly bullet trains, yet can't maintain basic infrastructure. And then they strong-arm us into raising taxes, yet again.

But, ultimately, the "properly" question is a matter of political philosophy. Most liberal Democrats I know are happy with the way California is managed, and with the priorities that emanate from Sacramento. And why not? They control every state constitutional office and have supermajorities in the legislature. That's where fairness comes in. People who live outside the metropolitan areas are always overruled in the Capitol. They have no effective representation, no way to govern according to local values.

In late March, two leaders of the Brexit movement—the successful, underdog referendum to extricate the United Kingdom from the European Union—were in Huntington Beach to receive an award from the American Association of Political Consultants. While there, they touted the latest plan to chop up California into two or more independent states. This is Version 2.0 of Silicon Valley entrepreneur Tim Draper's previous plan to create "Six Californias."

I've read dismissive and even mocking media coverage of Draper's idea. It's ridiculous, some say, even though there have been dozens of efforts to break up California since the beginning of the state. The eastern borders were largely arbitrary—and designed basically by committee at a constitutional convention.

But the imprimatur of two Brexit ringleaders, party leader Nigel Farage and financier Arron Banks, has put the issue back in the news, given that their British effort was once deemed too silly to contemplate. They beat the odds, so why can't we? While in Orange County, they met with former Orange County Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh, who has said the breakup idea would improve democratic representation. He's right. They were well-received when they spoke to local groups about Brexit and the possibility of partitioning California.

There have been myriad ideas to address our representation problem. I've written occasionally about San Diego-area businessman John Cox and his efforts to qualify a statewide initiative that would vastly expand the size of the Legislature. It sounds unwieldy to elect 8,000 Assembly members, which is why his Citizen Legislature plan still needs revamping. But the general idea makes sense.

In California, we have one Assembly member for every 483,000 residents. That's the worst ratio in the country. In New Hampshire, which has the best ratio, there are approximately 3,200 residents for every member of the statehouse. What are your chances of influencing or even reaching your legislator—or even his or her staffers—in California?

In a state as big as ours, only the big guys—the political parties, labor unions and other special interests—matter. Breaking up one mega-state into multiple reasonably sized states, where people with like-minded interests can better govern themselves, is a great idea that gives voters more power. If that won't happen, then we at least need more representative districts.

I carefully analyzed the Six Californias proposal, and found it would have created a competitive situation in the three more conservative states. The liberal states around Los Angeles, San Jose and Sacramento would have remained liberal bastions, but at least officials would be closer to home and more accountable.

I dismiss the "Calexit" idea, however, because it would make California its own nation. I can't imagine living without the protections of the U.S. Constitution (or what's left of it). It won't happen. Plus, it's reportedly advocated by a man with Russian ties.

But there's no reason we can't give new boundaries to old states. If Rhode Island—not much larger than Orange County—can have two senators and a Capitol, why can't there be several states formerly known as California? Thanks to Farage, Banks, Draper and Baugh for helping us revisit a vital question.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • racer X||

    Break Cali into 6 states, and we just need 2 more to get to the 57 states our previous overlord told us we had

  • Redcard||

    Yes, the seriousness of the proposal rests on the foundation of the gaffe of a tired candidate on the campaign trail.

    Aptly so.

  • mortiscrum||

    This is exactly the same logic that brings me to the conclusion that the Electoral College is nonsense. Yeah, conservatives love it because it helped them win twice now, but it also silences the votes of millions of people. Vote Republican in California? Your time would be better spent on Netflix. Same deal with Democrats in Alabama.

  • Mark22||

    Vote Republican in California?

    Before that senile old fool Ronald Reagan gave citizenship to millions of illegals, California was, in fact, a swing state.

    He gambled big on wishful thinking:

    "Latinos are Republicans. They just don't know it yet." The Republican Party's overriding priority in the years ahead must be to expand and diversify its shrinking demographic base, embracing immigrants generally and Hispanics in particular.
  • ||

    Ahh yes, the supremely ethical position that millions of people should be denied the vote, because they will vote for the wrong party.

  • Mark22||

    (1) These people were here illegally; they had no expectation to ever be voting, and they certainly had no right to vote. (I notice you used weasel words like "denied the vote" instead of "denied the right to vote", because the latter would have made your hypocrisy obvious).

    (2) Yeah, in a nation that treats democracy like tyranny of the majority and believes the majority has the right to take my life, liberty, and property at will, I indeed consider it "supremely ethical" to do whatever it takes to make sure that that majority isn't going to hurt me.

    Yeah, HazelMeade, I have no problems with my ethics, but I have grave doubts about yours.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Yeah, he made the mistake of thinking leftists have a shred of honor and integrity in them. He made a deal with them, and of course being the lowlife scum that they are they went back on their word at the very first opportunity.

    Sane people with a brain in their head won't ever make that kind of mistake again.

  • mortiscrum||

    How can you say he was wrong? There's a lot to suggest that Latinos are ripe for the Republican Party. But since the Republican Party has done everything they possibly can to drive away minority votes for the last 20 years, it should come as no surprise that they're getting a bit of a cold reception.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, republicans have themselves to blame as much as anyone else for the democrats being the party of immigrants.

  • Mark22||

    How can you say he was wrong?

    Well, California is a single party state now; so obviously he was wrong.

    since the Republican Party has done everything they possibly can to drive away minority votes for the last 20 years

    Well, and Reagan should have known that was likely going to happen. That is, the Republican party should first have demonstrated that they can attract Latino voters in large numbers and then increased the number of Latino voters. Just like you should first make spending cuts, and then lower taxes. Etc.

  • Jumper||

    Honestly a large numbers of Latinos are conservative Catholics who would be natural Republican voters if the Republicans could get away from the anti-immigrant BS

  • Brandybuck||

    It wasn't immigration. It was because the cities got bigger than the rest of the state.

  • ||

    ^ This.

    When Reagan was governor, CA was still thought of primarily as an agricultural state. Orange and Santa Clara counties were still largely rural, and LA and SD being considerable cities was still a pretty recent phenomenon.

  • Brandybuck||

    When I was at university in the 80s in San Diego it was still largely a cow town. There was pasturage next to Jack Murphy Stadium.

  • ||

    Growing up in OC in the 70s, it was all strawberries, tomatoes and, of course, oranges. The smell of rotting tomatoes on the late summer santanas is still a strong childhood memory.

    Of course, the stirrings were already there. It mystified us a bit why no one ever seemed to actually pick those oranges. Found out many years later the Irvine Company was just holding the land waiting for LA to sprawl out to central OC so they could parcel it out to developers, but they kept the orange groves growing because they got tax credits for having "agricultural land."

  • Rat on a train||

    The smell of rotting tomatoes on the late summer santanas is still a strong childhood memory.
    There were still dairy farms in Westminster in the 70s. The smell from those was much worse.

  • ||

    Ugh. I was in Fountain Valley in the 70s, Irvine in the 80s. FV was largely strawberries, which wasn't so bad, and apparently was maybe even saving us from the Westminster smells.

  • Robbzilla||

    You should check out the feed lots in Amarillo on a hot summer day.... WHEW!

  • Redcard||

    Funny how that happens. As areas get more populated, they turn away from Republican policies.

  • Calidissident||

    The "California is only heavily Democratic because of Latino immigration" line is a massive oversimplification itself, even more so blaming it on Reagan's amnesty.

    Latino immigration has been a big factor in the state going heavily Democratic, there's no denying that. But it's one of several factors. In Reagan's day, the Republicans won the white vote in California by large margins in most years. Today, the Democrats usually win the statewide white vote, or lose it by single digits at worst, narrowly enough that they could offset it with the black vote alone (which is less than 10% of the state). Another big factor has been the Asian population increasing while at the same time swinging from solidly Republican to solidly Democratic. The Asian vote is large in California, about half the size of the Latino vote. In the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections, Asians voted Republican nationally by large margins even as the white vote was essentially tied. Today, in California and nationally, the Asian vote has been more Democratic than the Latino vote in the past two presidential elections. The combined increase plus partisan swing has a substantial effect.

    If Asians and whites still voted the way they did in the 80s, California would probably be a battleground state in most elections. The changes I described, in addition to the increase in the Latino population, is what has turned the state into complete Democratic domination.

  • Bra Ket||

    Yeah Asian immigrants are probably more left-leaning as a group than Latinos even. I assume it's because from asia we currently get people from families which were/are successful within the socialist & communist systems there. Whereas in the past, Asian immigrants were more formerly-successful capitalists who fled the rise of communism in China and Vietnam that ruined them and threatened worse.

    Kinda like how, as southern cities gentrify, a lot of californians move in because they can make more money there or perhaps afford a home, but they bring their nanny state mentality with them.

  • ||

    My experience, completely anecdotal, has been that first-generation Asian immigrants tend to lean Republican, while their kids tend to be passionate Democrats. Part of the demographic shift in CA over the past 30 years has been the transformation of a large first-generation Asian immigrant population into a large second-generation Asian immigrant population.

  • Calidissident||

    I think you and Square = Circle bring up valid points that probably explain some of it. Also, in California Asians tend to live in liberal urban areas, so they're probably more likely to adopt those views around them even if their parents are more conservative.

    That said, from both anecdotal experience and from some articles I've read, the perception that Republicans are racist white people is definitely a major factor. And you can put some of that on exaggeration and lies by the Democrats and the media, but I think to blame it all on that is completely taking away agency and responsibility from Republicans (and also insulting to the intelligence of a group of people to assume they all believe something only because someone has tricked and lied to them despite it not working on other groups that apparently can see through it).

  • ||

    And you can put some of that on exaggeration and lies by the Democrats and the media, but I think to blame it all on that is completely taking away agency and responsibility from Republicans

    ^ This.

    I was going to comment earlier that if there's been some big flight in CA of Latinos from Republicans, Pete Wilson was cracking the whip behind them.

  • Bra Ket||

    "That said, from both anecdotal experience and from some articles I've read, the perception that Republicans are racist white people is definitely a major factor."

    I dunno about "major factor", maybe somewhere in the ten percent range or so, tops. I think "Lefty McSocialist" would still crush any black conservative businessman candidate, in a runoff between third party candidates or something, say. Even if the leftist couldn't stop making racist-sounding gaffes.

  • Calidissident||

    It's kind of hard to predict how such a far-flung scenario would go, but I think it's somewhat missing the point to focus on individual candidates. If someone thinks party X has a major problem with racism, they're probably not going to care too much about whether candidate Y specifically is racist or not. Most people aren't swing voters that analyze each candidate on their own merit independent of their party.

  • ||

    Yeah, it's not just a "perception" that Republicans are racist white people. Don't deny people their lived experiences.

    I don't think every person who votes Republican, or even a majority of them, are racist, but there is definitely a significant faction within the Republican party (ahem, the so-called "alt-right") which is, and it only takes a few incidents where someone hurls a racial slur or two to give someone the idea that certain white people don't like them. And the Republican party has to take that seriously and address it and change it before they will win minority votes again.

  • Calidissident||

    HM, I do agree with that. I was not arguing it was merely perception, but also not that it means all or most Republicans are racist. However, most overtly and maliciously* racist white people tend to be Republicans and that does turn off minority voters from the Republican party.

    *What I mean by this is that racism from white Democrats tends to be paternalistic in nature. A lot of them are people that would go out of their way to seem not-racist and to seem like they're kind and fair to minorities. And I do know a lot of even liberal minorities who find this very annoying and patronizing, but in general it's not going to hurt your party as much as open hate and contempt will. And gain, for emphasis, I'm not saying this is true of all or most Republicans.

  • Calidissident||

    *again

  • ||

    Oh, I read your whole comment. I didn't think you were saying that. I was agreeing with you.

  • Bra Ket||

    Calidissident took this segue (which ran off in a shockingly predictable direction...) to argue about asian voters. That group that, amusingly, is considered by racist whites to generally have superior intelligence vs whites. You are really straining the point to say they swung from R to D between Bush I and Bush II because of some slurs claimed to be overheard at crowds about black people or something.

    Also "in my anecdotal experience", immigrants tend to be a lot more racist than natives. Particularly Asians.

  • Calidissident||

    Do you think most Asians are ok with white racists and supremacists as long as they think Asians are smart? That's also not a universal belief among white racists, though it's admittedly common among the alt-right. You can be racist to a group even if you don't think they're stupid.

    "Also "in my anecdotal experience", immigrants tend to be a lot more racist than natives. Particularly Asians."

    You're not wrong that there's plenty of racism in every group (though Asian voters aren't all or even mostly immigrants, so I don't know why you're making that assumption), but people will tend to care most about racism directed at them. Just as how a lot of white people care more about affirmative action or people saying or doing racist things to white people than they will about anti-black or anti-Asian racism.

  • Bra Ket||

    Do you think most Asians are ok with white racists and supremacists as long as they think Asians are smart? That's also not a universal belief among white racists, though it's admittedly common among the alt-right. You can be racist to a group even if you don't think they're stupid...

    Asians are also subject to all the other cultural reasons that produce white racists, especially affirmative action.

    Is it "racist" to believe "the Bell Curve" is scientific facts? We need to clarify definitions some here I think. Also "the alt right" and white supremacists generally are a handful of trolls and outcasts as far as I can tell. Older Republicans (i.e. typical Republicans) who you guys are bashing for being too cozy or permissive or something by their association with those groups, probably wouldn't know who or what the hell you were even talking about. Their media does not push this narrative like yours does.

    Since you're alluding to stats, what percent of asian voters are first generation anyway? It doesn't need to be all or even most of them to explain the voting trends.

  • ||

    White people still yell things like "chink" at Asians at times, and treat them as aliens.
    Not many white girls will date Asians guys. Etcetera. No matter how much white racialists might claim the Asians or smarter or whatever, it doesn't change the way Asians are socially excluded from white society.
    Go to any high school in America. The white people and the Asians sit at different tables. How do you think that makes Asians feel?

  • marshaul||

    At my high school (northern Virginia), if Asians ate with Asians it was purely by choice. None of the cliques were racial, except possibly the "black clique". "My" clique, the metalheads, included Asians – the few who were into metal, anyway.

  • Galane||

    My experience with Latino immigrants who have become naturalized US citizens or are in the process have much dislike to extreme hatred of the ones who are here illegally.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Oh bullshit. It's a historical fact that the democrat party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the Klan, and just about every other evil thing that has befallen the black population. Now they use welfare systems to not only destroy black families, but those of latinos as well.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    So there is no confusion, I was specifically replying to Hazel.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I think your comment has some hyperbole in there in that it's difficult to blame modern people who belong to modern groups that have history of members who were long dead. I will agree with the main thrust of your comment in that the modern democratic party has essentially destroyed minority communities (and now white communities) through the continued expansion of welfare programs that ultimately did far more harm than good. Their insistence on continuing and expanding these programs while the evidence is around them means that they do bear some direct responsibility. In fact in my opinion it amounts to nothing more allowing suffering for short-term selfishness and a maintenance of power.

  • ||

    I agree that dependence on welfare is ultimately destructive, but when we're talking about Asians and many Hispanics, their support for Democrats is not because they are offering welfare. It is because Democrats are the party that makes them feel like they belong. Democrats are constantly telling blacks and Asians and Hispanics that they are wanted, that they are "real Americans". Republicans are the party that makes them feel like they DON'T belong and aren't wanted in America.

  • ||

    It's a historical fact that the democrat party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the Klan, and just about every other evil thing that has befallen the black population.

    This is such insane nonsense that it boggle the mind. You need to stop believing your own propaganda. All of that stuff is over 50 years ago. The parties have changed. The Democrats are clearly the party that favors minorities today and the Republicans are clearly the party that doesn't. All of those minorities that vote for Democrats are not doing tit because they've all be brainwashed by the media. They look at the rhetoric and policies adopted by Republicans and respond to the Republican party as it exists today, not as it existed in 1865.

  • Diane Merriam||

    There used to be plenty of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. More Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. They resorted themselves out in the late 60s to early 80s with the conservative Democrats switching to Republicans and the liberal Republicans switching to Democrats. Now they're divided not only by outlook but by party as well with little common ground between them and the gap widening.

  • Zeb||

    Oh, bullshit. The parties have both changed enormously over the years. You just can't think of it that way. The Democrats used to be the party of overt racism and segregation, but that ended a long time ago. Of course, we can talk about their soft or unintended racism, and a lot of that is valid, but that's not what people are talking about here.

    I do agree that policies promoted by Democrats, ostensibly to help poor minorities, have done enormous harm to those same communities. But it is just true that far more overt, malicious racists, and people widely perceived to be racist by minorities are Republicans. As others have pointed out, it's really a small minority among Republicans, but that's what it is.

  • Bra Ket||

    "Oh, bullshit. The parties have both changed enormously over the years. You just can't think of it that way. The Democrats used to be the party of overt racism and segregation, but that ended a long time ago."

    Note that the black vote swung staunchly to the Democrats during FDR. Well before the segregationists left the party.

  • marshaul||

    Note that Bra Ket's facts are completely made up, and that he's an obvious partisan shill.

    When will you Republicans realize that you stand out like a sore fucking thumb amongst libertarians? No, you don't fit in.

  • Bra Ket||

    Oh I'm the partisan shill around here? Look at how triggered and flamey you are. Don't project your religious fervor onto me. You (and Hazel both) are foaming at the mouth over freaking criticisms of team blue. Why does that piss you off so?

    And your link doesn't work, if that's what that's supposed to be.

  • Redcard||

    The historical fact assumes that the parties have the same mindsets as they did 50 years ago, 100 years ago.

    Lincoln was a liberal, going against the conservative Democrats who wanted to hold on to slavery. Holding on to the past is A Conservative Thing. By definition.

    Of course Democrats were the founders of the klan. By that token, the Brits were our colonizers and therefore the same enemy as it was in 1776 or 1812

  • Robbzilla||

    That changed under Nixon with the "Southern Strategy."

  • Loss of Reason||

    I do find it interesting it's only white people are racist and Republicans. There are, sure, but there are lot of Democrats that are racists.(Joe Biden saying he's "One of the clean ones" or the whole MSNBC lineup)

    Personally, I think telling a group constantly they are victims and you can't do it without us is racism.

    Since the media has a nice control of the message Democrats don't get called it.

  • Calidissident||

    If you're responding to me, I didn't say that, and I don't think Hazel believes that either, but we were talking about why Asians have trended towards Democrats. As I said, there's definitely plenty of racism in all racial groups, and in both parties. But people tend to care most about racism directed at them, and since white people are the majority group, non-white groups will tend to care most about racism directed at them by white people. And I said, white Democrat racism tends to be paternalism or advocacy masking discomfort below the surface (e.g. the white liberal who is always talking about fighting racism and support minorities but would be terrified to walk through a minority neighborhood). I'm not saying this is ok, or that minorities think this is all ok, I'm just saying that it's less alienating than in your face or thinly veiled hatred or contempt.

  • ||

    See, this is what I'm talking about. The Republican party, the right wing in general, is in this massive state of denial about the racism problem in it's ranks.
    All sorts of ridiculous absurd arguments are made for why it's really the Democrats who are racist and have always been racist and any minority person who thinks otherwise is brainwashed by the media. As I said, you can't deny people their lived experiences.

    It's somewhat analogous to the left and communism. People on the left live in a massive state of denial about the horror that was the USSR and communism, which is why leftists can still get away with calling themselves Marxists, can wear T-shirts with Che Guevara's portrait on them and be considered cool. And people on the right live in a massive state of denial about racism. People can run around right-wing message boards saying that Hispanics are innate socialists and black people have lower IQs and calling white liberals "race traitors", and waving their confederate flags, and people on the right have this gigantic blind-spot about it. Not happening, nothing to see here, move along.

  • ||

    I'm not saying this is ok, or that minorities think this is all ok, I'm just saying that it's less alienating than in your face or thinly veiled hatred or contempt.

    ^ This.

    If you listen to 'radical minority voices,' they will endlessly complain about the racist condescension of rich white liberals. But the central theme of the lamentations tends to be "but we're stuck with a choice between these assholes, who don't realize they're being assholes, and those assholes who are being assholes with full awareness of what they're doing."

    Standard Disclaimer: not all Republicans are racist; probably not even a majority. It's about the relative cultures of the two parties and the national debate they've framed that goes "should we help the minorities, oh yes or hell no?"

  • Diane Merriam||

    A large part of the Trump movement was a lot of whites really starting to tired of feeling that they're on the receiving end of just as much racism directed at them these days with no end in sight. They've become just one more "minority" group to politically target.

  • ||

    A large part of the Trump movement was a lot of whites really starting to tired of feeling that they're on the receiving end of just as much racism directed at them these days with no end in sight.

    ^ This.

    I wouldn't even go so far as to say "just as much racism," since that opens up a can of worms that's really beside the point. What's concerning is the "no end in sight" part - i.e. that not only does seem not to be seen as a problem, but racism against white people is positively encouraged in certain quarters.

    When you're not one of the privileged white people and you're looking from the bottom up like everyone else, it's concerning when there's open talk of white genocide and the media just goes 'meh.'

  • Redcard||

    Yes, because there is this law which says that if you say someone is racist, then you are the racist.

  • Cy||

    "I don't think every person who votes Republican, or even a majority of them, are racist, but there is definitely a significant faction within the Republican party (ahem, the so-called "alt-right") which is, and it only takes a few incidents where someone hurls a racial slur or two to give someone the idea that certain white people don't like them. And the Republican party has to take that seriously and address it and change it before they will win minority votes again."

    No one is going to address the elephant in the room? It's perfectly OK for Democrats to be certain types of racist and get a pass.

    Ironically, I think democrats are the more legislatively racist of the two dung piles. Taking the social security and medicare taxes into account, they've held a lot of demographics in the lower middle to poor classes.

  • Bubba Jones||

    My Asian friend from California has a very strong aversion to republicans because "they are racist".

    In truth he might be the most racist person I know. I think the real issue is that Asians aren't mad about racism. They are made that they get lumped in with Mexicans.

  • Calidissident||

    Bubba,

    Your story is a good example of the point I was making, though I don't think you can apply it to all anti-Republican Asians of course. As I've said in a couple of comments, people tend to care most about racism directed at them, and I think this is also true for people who may be racist towards other races themselves. You can see this from "anti-racist" activists on the left who in many instances display racism towards whites. And also from a lot of racist white people who will nonetheless get bent out of shape when someone is being racist towards white people.

  • Bra Ket||

    Asians undoubtedly overheard a lot more racist epithets in the 80's when they were staunch R voters then they do today. And those voters are still alive and voting R, by the way, they didn't change their minds. They are just outnumbered by all the new Asians who have come from China and India. Chines is now the 3rd most common language in the US.

  • ||

    Chines is now the 3rd most common language in the US.

    What a silly thing to say!

    1) Chinese is not a language

    2) The combined speakers of Mandarin and Cantonese make up less than 1% of the population

    There are probably more Tagalog and Vietnamese speakers in the US than either Mandarin or Cantonese.

    Do you have anything to indicate that recent immigrants trend blue rather than red? Because that has never been my experience - however, it's been my experience that Asians (and other ethnic minorities) who grow up here trend strongly blue.

    And this is especially true over the last 16 years. Arabs and Persians were predictably, reliably a Republican voting block until about 2003. I wonder what changed?

  • Bra Ket||

    What a silly thing to say!

    1) Chinese is not a language

    2) The combined speakers of Mandarin and Cantonese make up less than 1% of the population

    There are probably more Tagalog and Vietnamese speakers in the US than either Mandarin or Cantonese.

    Well on all these precise points, the census bureau sayeth the following:

    2.8 million

    The number of people 5 and older who spoke Chinese at home in 2010. After Spanish, Chinese was the most widely spoken non-English language in the country. Tagalog, Vietnamese and Korean were each spoken at home by more than 1 million people.
    Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Table B16001,
  • ||

    Well God only knows, if the Census Bureau says Chinese is a language, they must be the experts, right?

    /sarc

    Educate yourself, son.

    And in any case,

  • ||

    I guess it thought my "less than" was an HTML tag.

    Less than one percent is not a voting block. Your hyperventilating about the yellow invasion is premature.

  • Bra Ket||

    "Do you have anything to indicate that recent immigrants trend blue rather than red? Because that has never been my experience - however, it's been my experience that Asians (and other ethnic minorities) who grow up here trend strongly blue.

    And this is especially true over the last 16 years. Arabs and Persians were predictably, reliably a Republican voting block until about 2003. I wonder what changed?"

    Hrm arabs are asians now?

    Otherwise I looked into the stats before. Vietnamese used to be the dominant group and were (and continue to) staunch republican voters. They just got overtaken by Chinese and Indians.

    As for the children, I kind of doubt it differs very much from the culture they are in, as some one else was saying (Calidissident?). Unless they're in some kind of alienated subculture, which probably doesn't apply to too many asians given the economic stats.

  • ||

    Hrm arabs are asians now?

    Why, yes. They have been for some time.

    Educate yourself, son.

    Unless they're in some kind of alienated subculture, which probably doesn't apply to too many asians given the economic stats.

    Are you even reading the comments you're responding to?

  • Bra Ket||

    Well I ceased reading much of your comments "Square = Circle", after you got all aggressive. Let's remember it was you who called me out first (I believe "silly" was the word you used) , so don't get all immature and defensive about it.

    And I'm not interested in reading your counter-stats against my direct quote from an authority. If the wording used be the freaking census bureau upsets you, take it up with them. I'll be sticking with their assessment. Though yes to be pedantic, I will agree that it is more technically accurate that Chinese (as used in that direct quote from the govt, google it and see for yourself) refers to multiple languages.

  • Calidissident||

    That may be true, but I'm not really talking about the immigrants as much as Asian Americans who have grown up here. That's the majority of the Asian vote. I know a lot of second generation (or more) Asian Americans and it's a very common perception that Republicans are racist who don't view them as Americans the way they view other white people ("perpetual foreigner" stereotype, something that applies to a lot of Latinos as well).

    I think the polarization among the white community has made the Republican-Democrat divide more stark to most people (again, that doesn't mean most Republicans are racist, just that overtly racist white people have trended more and more Republican in recent decades), and I think that's had an effect. Also, there were plenty of Chinese people in the Asian population in the 80s.

  • Mark22||

    True, there were multiple factors. Nevertheless, legalizing that many Latinos was a huge risk, and it blew up in the Republican party's face. And California and the nation are paying the price now.

    (That's in addition to Reagan's legalization program being profoundly unfair to legal immigrants.)

  • Galane||

    Asians, especially those of Japanese ancestry, voting Democrat, is pretty crazy. Have they forgotten who, with the stroke of a pen, ordered them rounded up and put in camps? Even many of the ones still alive who were put in those camps seem to have forgotten it was a Democrat that did it.

    Same thing with blacks. Blacks, especially in the southeast, used to be a solid GOP block thanks to President Lincoln. The Democratic Party has been ripping away at that legacy for 150+ years to convince blacks that Lincoln and every Republican since is a KKK Nazi racist who wants to enslave them - nevermind that it was the Democrats doing the enslaving, then they kept segregation going, started the KKK and all the other crap they try to blame Republicans for. Show them how for every one of the four times a civil rights act was passed, Democrats 100% or nearly so voted against them - you'll either get "I had no idea!" or they'll scream and holler that it's a lie, Democrats have always loved and supported them, no way any Republican would ever have voted for any civil rights act.

    I wonder how many think Gov. George Wallace "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever!" was a Republican?

    How can 150 years of the big lie be overcome, especially when they've been conditioned to reject the truth, to the point of insisting that so much of this nation's history has been fabricated, especially when it comes to anything to do with blacks?

  • Bill||

    Reagan was correct. Too bad the Republican party did not listen and that Trump
    was able to run on his foolish anti-immigration policy. Interesting that he has no real
    principles and is able to so easily back-track on dozens of the things he said while
    running.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Yeah, conservatives love it because it helped them win twice now

    Only by sheer flukes. Winning the Presidency as a Democrat should be the easiest thing in the world because three of the largest states, California, New York, and Illinois are automatic Dem wins. That's 38 percent of the necessary electoral count in just three states, and it's a big reason that Hillary's campaign team was trying to bolster her vote count in those places because she thought she was going to win the EC but lose the popular vote.

    Yeah, California has an outsized influence on the Presidential campaign and is basically one-party state now, but that's what happens when you import a massive number of left-wing sympathetic mestizos over a period of 40 years.

  • Bra Ket||

    This is exactly the same logic that brings me to the conclusion that the Electoral College is nonsense. Yeah, conservatives love it because it helped them win twice now, but it also silences the votes of millions of people. Vote Republican in California? Your time would be better spent on Netflix. Same deal with Democrats in Alabama.

    A system controlled by two entrenched parties is nonsense. Speaking of votes being silenced, when were you going to get to the 3rd party votes that are relevant to us here?

    Democracy is nonsense. I'm an individual with my own values.

    Representative democracy is nonsense. people just say fuck-all to get elected then do the same shit regardless of party.

    There is no legitimate way for other people to band together and deprive me of my rights.

  • Mark22||

    Democracy is nonsense. I'm an individual with my own values. There is no legitimate way for other people to band together and deprive me of my rights.

    The US was founded in a world of nation states and had to exist as a nation state. Democracy was fine for the minimal set of functions that a nation state needs to perform: external defense, external trade, and internal liberty. The only powers the US federal government originally had were powers related to that, and representative democracy started out as a reasonable way for people to administer those very limited powers.

    The problem is that since then, democracy has turned progressive and made every aspect of everybody's life subject to mob rule. Social democracy or progressive democracy is wrong.

  • Bra Ket||

    Well I mean sure. But constitutions are undemocratic by definition. If there was a constitution that actually protected my rights (including property) then I'm cool with that.

  • Redcard||

    This is honest. And appreciated.

  • Zeb||

    Well, it sort of comes down to whether you think that the president is elected by the states or by the people.

    I like the EC because it guarantees that small states remain relevant. I think a good compromise reform would be to have states break up their electoral votes that correspond to house seats by house district. Then people in republican districts in CA or NY at least would have some reason to vote.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    People don't realize that the purpose of the EC. It was supposed to keep small states ok being eaten by the two wolves.

    I know it's frustrating for people when they're on the losing end of an ec vote, but imagine how frustrating it would be to know that California would drive every presidential vote from here to eternity.

  • ||

    Yeah, it's the winner-take-all voting that screws it all up. Ban winner-take-all allocation of electoral college votes and you solve the problem.

  • Longtobefree||

    Might work; they are well on their to banning the rest of the constitution.

  • mortiscrum||

    RE: Well, it sort of comes down to whether you think that the president is elected by the states or by the people

    This is a novel idea I've really seen before. However, my critique would be is that I think it ascribes WAY more to the idea of states as a voting bloc than the concept deserves. People in northern Cali for instance (or in NY anywhere but NYC) vote much more like the average voter from Idaho or Nebraska or some other reliably red state. The defense of the EC is that, theoretically, California voters could all vote one way and dominate the election. That is completing ignoring the fact that "California" is some random lines on map and the people within those lines would never vote together in that fashion.

    The only geographical thing that matters when it come to voting is urban or rural. State lines mean fuck-all.

  • ||

    The defense of the EC is that, theoretically, California voters could all vote one way and dominate the election.

    This is, in fact, exactly what did happen - no "theoretically" needed. Without the EC, HRC carried the election on the strength of NY and CA alone.

    The only geographical thing that matters when it come to voting is urban or rural. State lines mean fuck-all.

    That's where you're exactly wrong. All of CA's EC votes go in a block to whichever party carried the state by majority. If CA were broken into different states, those EC votes wouldn't be a single block, but would be distributed by state.

  • Calidissident||

    "This is, in fact, exactly what did happen - no "theoretically" needed. Without the EC, HRC carried the election on the strength of NY and CA alone."

    This is kind of a stupid way to think about the election IMO. Yes, if you subtract California, Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states combined. But the vote had to be close enough for California to make the difference. It's like saying that if a Republican won the popular vote narrowly, they only won because of Texas. You can almost always break things up a certain way to get the result you're looking for. It's not like Trump crushed the popular vote exempting CA, or even NY too. Take those away and he won by about the same amount of votes Clinton did nationally.

    My problem with the EC is the winner take all allocation gives state that goes one way by 0.1% the same weight as it would if it went by 50%. And it also promotes focusing not on small states or all states, but the few swing states that decide the election. I'm not against it in some form, but I do think the way it works should be retooled (then again, one positive aspect of living in California is you get a lot less political ads than in places like Florida, so maybe I should rethink this).

  • ||

    My point is really that mortiscrum is being dismissive of the idea that more populous states would have more clout without the EC, when without the EC the election would have gone the other way.

    It's obviously unlikely that CA would swing an election all by itself with a candidate who was way ahead in the rest of the country, but how often does that happen?

    But only twice in the ten presidential elections I've observed since becoming aware of politics have I seen the winner not be the candidate CA voted for, and both were because of the EC.

    Without the EC, our most recent presidents would have been Clinton-Gore-Obama-Clinton.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If you consider term count, that reads Clinton-clinton-gore- obama-obama-clinton-clinton.

  • ||

    Yeah - my thought experiment kind of breaks down on the assumption that Gore would have been re-elected, which he almost certainly wouldn't have been.

  • Calidissident||

    Gore might have been re-elected, but I don't buy the liberal line that the economy would have been just fine in the late 2000s if he had won, so I think worst case scenario for the Republicans they win in 2008.

  • Calidissident||

    Regarding your last line, I'm not so sure of that, because if/when things go bad under a Democrat, a Republican would likely get voted into office even with a strict popular vote.

    "It's obviously unlikely that CA would swing an election all by itself with a candidate who was way ahead in the rest of the country, but how often does that happen?"

    It's really not that high of a bar to clear. Even with Clinton's historic margin in California, the difference (about 4.3 million votes) was less than 4% of the votes in the rest of the country. A 4% margin isn't that big of a win, particularly when you're excluding your opponent's best state.

    California was a Republican state when Republicans did well nationally in presidential elections, and a Democratic state in an era where the Democrats have done well in presidential elections. Those things are obviously somewhat related, but even excluding CA, the Republicans would have all 3 elections in the 80s, and Clinton and Obama would have won both of their elections as well.

    Also, I just realized that your statistic is inaccurate, because Bush won the popular and electoral vote in 2004, while losing California.

  • Calidissident||

    *Obviously Clinton refers to Bill in this instance.

  • ||

    Also, I just realized that your statistic is inaccurate, because Bush won the popular and electoral vote in 2004, while losing California.

    .

    Right - I'd forgotten about that one.

    I concede - point overstated.

    But I still think mortiscrum is wrong to dismiss states' rights as one of the arguments in favor of the EC.

  • mortiscrum||

    RE: But I still think mortiscrum is wrong to dismiss states' rights as one of the arguments in favor of the EC.

    I really don't understand the "state's rights" angle. States have plenty of rights, and they are exercised most notably in the Congressional branch. I don't see how artificially putting entirely disconnected people together in a bloc is an example of state's rights.

  • ||

    It's a tension created by the difference in how different states came to be.

    The artificially putting entirely disconnected people together in a bloc is a feature of the country west of the Mississippi. East of the Mississippi the states for the most part were pre-existing (even as far west as Texas, and even, to a certain extent, CA), so the lines separating them are not arbitrary but in fact represent contiguous areas of common interest that pre-date membership in the Union.

    It was when the US Fed Gov started acquiring large tracts of land for people to homestead that you got arbitrarily drawn states and where "states' rights" as a concept has a less firm basis.

    But speaking of Congressional representation, were you aware that it used to be state legislatures that elected Senators? This is because states used to be considered sovereign entities joined together in a union of states, not just as regional branches of a national government.

    The EC protects states rights because it treats the states as sovereign entities protecting their own regional interests apart from the size of their populations - working just like the Senate that way. Without the EC, the more populous states have outsized influence, and their regional interests overwhelm everyone else's.

  • Calidissident||

    Square,

    That's a fair point, the east coast states were drawn less arbitrarily, but the South still had large disconnected blocs due to slavery (obviously this didn't reflect in the governance of the states for the most part until the mid 1900s due to the fact that black people were mostly unable to vote until then) and the growth of cities in the last 200+ years has also introduced this dynamic in a lot of those states.

    Look at the closely contested Rust Belt states. Almost every county is Red, but the highly populated blue metro areas make the states competitive or in the case of Illinois, solidly Democrat.

  • ||

    Look at the closely contested Rust Belt states. Almost every county is Red, but the highly populated blue metro areas make the states competitive or in the case of Illinois, solidly Democrat.

    No doubt. The urban-rural divide is a very real thing, and dates to the dawn of civilization itself.

    Are you arguing that the EC has nothing to do with states' rights and protecting the interests of the less populous states from the more populous states? I see the problem of urban vs. rural within states as being somewhat different.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not saying it has nothing to do with that. But I'm saying that in practice, it does more to bolster the power of swing states than the less populous generally, and the winner take all allocation often doesn't really do a good job of representing states well. For example, about 0.25% of the vote is all that decided whether Michigan would give 100% of its votes to Trump or 100% of its votes to Clinton.

  • ||

    in practice, it does more to bolster the power of swing states than the less populous generally, and the winner take all allocation often doesn't really do a good job of representing states well.

    Agreed. It would function a lot better to protect minority rights of all varieties simply if the 'winner-take-all' element were done away with.

  • mortiscrum||

    RE: protecting the interests of the less populous states from the more populous states

    This is what I was trying to get at earlier: I think this notion is a false one. For it to be worthwhile concern, voters within states would have to vote together in some way, combining their votes to influence elections to that states' favor.

    There is zero evidence this happens at the national level. Looking at a county by county map of presidential elections makes it extremely clear that urban vs rural is the real difference maker, not state vs state. Thus, any version of the EC that isn't based on urban vs rural is going to disenfranchise millions of voters by lumping them in with people who are going to vote the opposite.

  • ||

    Maybe a better way to frame it is that the EC protects the rights of majorities in less populous states from majorities in more populous states, such that states that have rural majorities are not overwhelmed by states that have urban majorities.

    Within states, there is a very clear divide where big cites go blue and everywhere else goes red. That's probably something that needs to be addressed on the state level, apart from the EC. Abandoning the EC, though, means that those states that are predominantly agricultural lose their voices to those that primarily industrial or mercantile.

  • marshaul||

    Without disparaging states' rights on other grounds, I will assert that, as an ardent amateur historian of pre-revolutionary Virginia, your contention that "east of the Mississippi" states represented "contiguous areas of common interest" has no basis in history, fact, or reason.

  • ||

    Without disparaging states' rights on other grounds, I will assert that, as an ardent amateur historian of pre-revolutionary Virginia, your contention that "east of the Mississippi" states represented "contiguous areas of common interest" has no basis in history, fact, or reason.

    But you understand the distinction I'm drawing between Eastern and Western states, right?

    Imprecise, maybe, but "no basis in fact" strikes me as a little strong.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Trump campaigned to win electoral votes, where Hillary ignored that concern as she took many of the swing states for granted. Had Teump campaigned specifically to win the popular vote, he clearly would have done better in that regard. Also, there is no question that a good portion, if not all of HRC's surplus votes came from illegals, prisms, the pet cemetery, kindergarten rolls, duplicate voters, etc.. so her three million vote surplus is dubious at best.

  • mortiscrum||

    RE: That's where you're exactly wrong. All of CA's EC votes go in a block to whichever party carried the state by majority. If CA were broken into different states, those EC votes wouldn't be a single block, but would be distributed by state.

    Umm, what? That's exactly what I said. Get rid of the EC, and ALL of the states are effectively broken up and each voter is able to vote for whoever they want, secure in the knowledge that it counts just as much as any other vote. When I say "the only geographical thing that matter in voting is urban or rural," I'm referring to individual voting habits. There are scores of rural, conservative voters in NY, CAL, etc., they just happen to live in states with large enough cities (or city) to entirely drown them out. Conversely, the red states are red because they don't have a giant city to override the rural vote.

    This article could be written for every single state that reliable votes in either direction, and the argument would be just as good.

  • ||

    Ah - I see. We're talking apples and oranges.

    You're saying it's not "California" that makes people Democrats, it's being in big cities, and since CA is dominated by big cities, California is dominated by Democrats such that if you broke the rural parts out, those parts wouldn't be dominated by Democrats. Which is what virtually everyone here is saying.

    Since what you said was in response to Zeb saying that redrawing state lines would empower rural people more, what it sounded like you were saying is that the new state lines wouldn't matter, and the people wouldn't vote in statewide blocks.

    That's what I was disagreeing with.

  • mortiscrum||

    Ah. Yeah, two different things.

  • esteve7||

    Can you find a single election where splitting CA up (say 60% EVs go to Dems and 40% to GOP) into two states would have swung the electoral college?

    This would only help the GOP post-Reagan, and no Dem victories were close enough for it to matter. Neither Obama or Clinton would have lost even if ALL of CA went to the GOP.

    Carter narrowly won over Ford... but CA went for Ford so that doesn't count.

    I can't find an election where splitting CA's votes would have swayed it after Hayes/Tilden in 1876...

  • Zeb||

    Popular election of the electors isn't required by the constitution. The states can choose them however their legislatures decide. So the system was never designed to be anything like a national popular vote, but a weighted-by-population vote among the states.

  • Calidissident||

    The problem with that is that it incentivizes gerrymandering even more. You'd have to accompany that with a nationwide system of district drawing that's objective and can't be gerrymandered. Something like an algorithm.

  • Zeb||

    I'm all for that too. Partisan gerrymandering should be just as illegal as racial gerrymandering.

    But I don't think that it would be significantly worse than it is now for congressional districts.

  • Calidissident||

    It might not be much worse, but it would be a lot more impactful since it could potentially swing a presidential election.

  • Zeb||

    States are free to do it now if they want to, I think.

  • Calidissident||

    They are, and Nebraska and Maine do this. There's not an incentive for most states though, because most states lean heavily one way or the other, so it would disadvantage the party in power. And in swing states, I guess they don't see much of a reason to, probably because it would decrease the influence their state has.

  • Loss of Reason||

    Actually reading this proves why the Electoral College works - much as rural CA has no say in anything, that is who rural states would feel. The Electoral College was made so certain areas just couldn't dominate the college.

    Democrats have won in Alabama you know. Mr Clinton was from there.

  • Calidissident||

    You're thinking of Arkansas

  • LDRider||

    Hey, they both start with "A."

    Both then, so does Alaska.

  • LDRider||

    The Electoral College functioned in the 2016 presidential election *exactly* as the founders intended - to prevent a regional candiadate becoming president. The Constitution never was intended to be a instrument of democracy. Instead it creates a republic, where even states like Kansas, Rhode Island, and Wyoming matter in the electoral system. If you want a straight democracy, then be prepared to abandon the principles of protection of minority rights, because the majority *alaways* will strip the rights of the minority.

  • Lord_at_War||

    It was the Democrats who demanded "majority- minority" districts, and the GOP said "Please don't throw me in that briar patch. Br'er Fox". Now Democrats want to bitch about about "gerrymandering".

  • Jimothy||

    This is exactly why breaking up California makes sense: it makes government more representative of the local citizenry. Now, the California government represents liberal urbanites and suburbanites, and collective interests like almond farmer, but little else. Those of other political stripes would be better represented if their voices were not drowned out. The article makes this case, so I'll leave it at that.

    If you looking at things in terms of local votes for national office, then Alabama democrats got their voice heard in the two elections prior to 2016.

    But this hints at the problem: when so much attention—and authority—is placed on one office, it becomes impossible for government to remain representative. Roughly half the population is bound to be disappointed by the outcome of any presidential election (more than half of you consider that many are likely disappointed by both major candidates, as 2016 demonstrated).

    In my libertarian utopia, these problems are solved by very, very local representation: I represent myself, you represent yourself, and we form or join whatever voluntary unions for situations where we self representation is insufficient.

    In the meantime, however, we can take steps away from one government representing all, whether all is 330 million or 39 million. California needn't wait for Washington to champion federalism; they can move towards more, though still far from utopian, local representation themselves.

  • ||

    That's a really interesting idea. Much more interesting and practical than California leaving the union. Living in NH, I love and am proud how representative our state house is. It has the third most members in our Congress in the world, trailing only the US Federal Government and British Parliament. It makes for some really funky politics with really strange personalities winning elections, although I wish we embraced the "Live Free or Die" mantra more. Too many Mass people are abandoning their liberal bastion due to high costs of living and taxes but bringing their liberal politics that increase the costs of living and taxes.

  • Mark22||

    They beat the odds, so why can't we?

    Let's see...

    In a state as big as ours, only the big guys—the political parties, labor unions and other special interests—matter.

    That's why! I knew there was a reason!

  • EscherEnigma||

    "People who live outside the metropolitan areas are always overruled in the Capitol."
    Depending on your measure, up to 80% of Americans live in urban areas. For California is closer to 95%. A system where rural voters are equally influential as urban voters is a heavily gerrymandered system.

    That said, to answer the question if "why no one takes out seriously", it's because it would require Congressional approval. And even if you can pacify the partisan concerns, any proposal that dilutes the influence of senators from 49 states and gives more Senate influence from the hypothetically-former state of California is probably going to be DOA.

    So sure, if the "six Californias" proposal actually ends up on the ballot, I'll vote for it. But the "think of the rural voters" argument is bullshit.

  • Calidissident||

    I think you bring up a valid point, but the Census measure of urban areas doesn't really correspond to what people actually think of. I grew up in a town of less than 50,000 people 200 miles from the nearest big cities, and yet we are considered an urban area. There's also a lot of small to mid-sized cities in the Central Valley that are considered urban areas even though they in many ways have rural characters and concerns to them.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I agree with this. I grew up in similar circumstances. My town was surrounded by farmland and ranches. Yet by any measure it would be thrown into the urban column. The two principal economies were agriculture and defense industries.

  • Zeb||

    And where I live, 50,000 is a major city and small towns are < 5000 people. At least in my mind.

  • Calidissident||

    What state do you live in?

  • Zeb||

    New Hampshire. There are only 2 cities with more than 50,000 people and outside of the southern tier, very few municipalities over 15,000 or so that aren't organized as cities rather than towns. Counties are mostly irrelevant outside of the court system.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, in California 50,000 people is nothing and if you're not a suburb of a big city, you won't consider yourself as living in an urban area.

  • DaveSs||

    According to the census, I live in an 'urbanized area' which counts towards the alleged 80% stat.

    Its a town of 10,000 surrounded by corn fields for several miles in each direction and about 40 miles from the nearest 'city' of any real size (~200,000 people).

    The townsfolk by and large do not consider themselves as living in an urban area.

  • Calidissident||

    That's an even more extreme example than mine is.

  • DaveSs||

    It seems places < 50000 are actually called 'urban clusters' not 'urbanized area' but they still count to the 80% number. I think that's actually intentional done so as to overstate the urban poplation.

    The think to takeaway from our examples is that a decent sized portion of the 80% of people who are by the census bureau definition 'urban' are not actually 'urban' in that they think, vote, act with rural considerations in mind.

  • Brandybuck||

    It's not gerrymandering, it merely how to you divide up a city. If you have a total population to allow for six districts, then cutting the region into pie wedges with the city at the center gives you six urban districts. cutting the region into rings with the city at the center gives you one urban district and five non-urban districts.

    The upshot is that the traditionally "fair" way of dividing a region along cultural/neighborhood/interest lines means you get fewer urban districts. And Democrats hate that because urban districts are overwhelmingly liberal.

  • Redcard||

    As long as the fairness means that about the same number of people are represented in each district, and an entire district is continuous, don't care how it gets done.

    A fair way is to make sure that done according to population, it does not leave a land-based distribution too far out of whack, and vice-versa.

    In other words, minimize the standard deviation for both aspects.

  • ||

    A system where rural voters are equally influential as urban voters is a heavily gerrymandered system.

    That's not the point. At least, it misses the point.

    The point is not that Central Valley voters should have as much influence over statewide policy as SF-SJ-LA-SD voters. It's that they should have their own zone within which to make policy for themselves.

    As it is, the CA legislature represents the big cities and the big cities only, and the Valley just gets railroaded over (sometimes literally). The policy decisions that are "right" according to SF voters are tyrannical for people in, say, Yolo County, but the legislators have no awareness because Yolo County hardly has a voice.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    My recommendation to the Central Valley folks is they should stop sending food to the big cities.

    Let the good people of San Francisco eat the human feces lying on their sidewalks for a week or two and I bet their arrogant attitude will change pretty quickly.

  • Calidissident||

    I think you overestimate the people of SF. They'd respond by demanding the government go in and confiscate food while becoming even more arrogant in the process.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    OK, but eventually someone will have to grow more food.

    Somehow, I'm having a tough time picturing Nancy Pelosi getting up at the crack of dawn to milk the cows and plow the field.

  • ||

    You've seen pictures of Pelosi, right?

    She hasn't eaten since 1987. She survives on the lamentations of farmers and small business people.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Doesn't she consume the blood of small Latino children as a supplement as well?

  • Calidissident||

    That would be a funny sight.

    Ultimately though, the problem with this is that farmers and rural communities get hurt more by not selling their products than the urban areas do by not getting food from people in the Valley. They can buy it from elsewhere. They'll have to pay higher prices, but that's not as big of a deal to standard of living as not selling food is for farmers.

  • Brandybuck||

    No joke. They have already done this for the water. Literally. Not figuratively but literally.

  • ||

    This is not an uncommon sentiment in the Valley.

    Unfortunately, the people in SF have a lot of cash that they will happily fork over for their locally-sourced, free-range, organically-grown produce such that the Valley people often wind up selling their food anyway.

  • Zeb||

    And how are they going to control where the food goes after they sell it? Or are you suggesting they should just let it rot in the fields?

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Maybe they should just let it rot in the fields if they're going to just constantly get shit on.

    Think of it as a form of civil disobedience. Maybe they could even give themselves a catchy name for public relations, like "Farmers' Lives Matter" or something along those lines.

  • ||

    I think what would happen in practice is that SF would buy food from somewhere else, and the Valley economy would collapse.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    You could be right, but that valley is one of the most fertile and productive stretches of land on the entire planet. Simply getting all those fruits and vegetables from somewhere else might not be nearly as easy or cheap as people think.

  • Zeb||

    Maybe. But I doubt you could get enough people to agree to take that huge risk. Even if things start going their way more politically, it could be tough for a lot of farmers to recover from those losses.

  • ||

    Not to mention that much of CA's farmland is artificially maintained, and will revert to a much more difficult state if that's not kept up.

    When settlers first arrived, the Valley was a pretty frustrating alternation of deserts and swamps. It's economy is pretty heavily dependent on the continuous operation of large-scale waterworks.

  • Redcard||

    They do not send food. They sell food. If they do not wish to sell their food, cool.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Over half of California's population lives in cities of 100,000 or more, and each state assembly seat is within 1% of the rest.

    So how is complaining about YOLO County's lack of influence *not* an appeal to gerrymander in favor of the minority population?

    Fact is, Republicans hold about a third of seats in the state legislature because there a more Democrats in the state. YOLO county has a small choice because it's small. You want you county to have a bigger voice? The *only* way that happens is by gerrymandering. Whether with State lines or weekly districts.

  • ||

    You're still missing the point. Here it is again:

    The point is not that Central Valley voters should have as much influence over statewide policy as SF-SJ-LA-SD voters. It's that they should have their own zone within which to make policy for themselves.

    Put another way:

    It's not that Yolo County's voters should be given more power over SF or LA County's voters. It's that the two should be separated from one another such that Yolo County voters are not overwhelmingly subjected to the whims of SF voters who don't understand/don't care about/aren't aware of the existence of Yolo County.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Right... So you make YOLO county is own State, freeing it from the California legislature, which it had a proportional vote/voice in.

    And move it into its own senator and congressman, suddenly giving it a disproportionately large voice/vote to inflict it's whims on California.

    Like I said, it's gerrymandering. Just at the state level.

    Unless you think the people of YOLO County would be happy reverting to a non-voting territory? Cause I haven't seen any "one State and five territories California" ideas.

  • ||

    You don't seem to see a distinction between state governments and the federal government. The idea is that states are sovereign entities that govern their own internal affairs, rather than just being branches of a unified national government.

    You're thinking in terms of "just draw this line over here, and now this person has more influence over that person" because you're not thinking of the states as separate entities, just rungs in a ladder that goes from the bottom straight to the Presidency like some grand Empire.

    And quick question on something I wasn't aware of - is YOLO an acronym? What does it stand for?

  • DaveSs||

    YOLO - You only live once.

  • Redcard||

    If their policy only affects them, by all means. If not, then at least democratically, they need to have more people agree with them.

  • Dadlobby||

    And upstate New Amsterdam (NY) is still waiting also........ I don't see ANY politician or party giving up what they have!

  • Zeb||

    New Netherland.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Wouldn't it just be a lot easier to grant the progressive population in the US a thousand square miles of Antarctic territory to be their communist dystopia? Granted, the conditions are cold, but many of their kind were planning on moving to Canada recently anyway., so I don't see a problem with that.

    Given their brilliance and the efficiency gained by central planning unfettered by conservatives, prosperity should immediately ensue.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    The upside to a breakup is not that politicians in the smaller states will become angels. Voting in elections is overrated.

    Making it easier for people to vote with their feet is the real advantage.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    My idea for a constitutional ammendment:

    1. Following each decennial census, any state containing less than one million people shall be merged into the smallest neighboring state

    2. After the above is performed, any state containing more than 10 million people shall be split into two states with equal population.

    3. At the time this ammendment is adopted, Delaware shall be merged into Maryland, North Dakota shall be merged into South Dakota, Alaska shall be merged into Washington, Vermont shall be merged into New Hampshire, and Wyoming shall be merged into Montana. Likewise, California shall be divided into four equally sized states, Texas shall each be divided into three equally sized states, and Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio shall each be divided into two equally sized states.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Why don't we just join the EU?

  • Agammamon||

    #2 would be difficult to do in some states (like Arizona) without splitting major cities in two.

    6.8 million people in AZ, 4.6 million of them live in the Phoenix Metro area.

    And I'm not keen on the idea that I might have to change states every 10 years.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Who says you can't split the cities? Philadelphia/Camden, Kansas City, DC/suburbs all do fine with one metropolitan area split between multiple states. Heck, Detroit and San-Diego have parts of their metropolitan areas that aren't even in the same country (Windsor and Tijuana).

  • Stormy Dragon||

    In fact, my proposal would require breaking up at least Los Angeles and New York, since both have more than 10 million in their metro areas.

  • EscherEnigma||

    There are a number of problems. First, that it would end up doing exactly what folks are complaint about: giving cities more political power.

    Second, rewriting state constitutions, either from merging or splitting, will always be a lengthy process, so there should be some sort of bulwark on place to make sure it can't happen every ten years to the same states.

    Third, Hawaii and Alaska are problems. While Hawaii currently beats out your minimum, Alaska would be gone, meaning that those folks have a state government *really* far away.

    Am alternate idea might be to give states that are below the minimum the option to become territories​instead of merging, and give the territories a combined​ voting representative

    But if you're doing that, you should also require that territories above your threshold, or maybe double the threshld or something, (like Puerto Rico) either become states or leave the US.

    Overall, it's an interesting idea, but because of my first problem, it'll never happen leaving some major upheavel.

  • ||

    At the same time, Rhode Island, Conneticut and Massachusetts should merge, and Delaware should merge with New Jersey.

    All those itty bitty states on the East Coast have way too many senators.

  • ||

    All those itty bitty states on the East Coast have way too many senators.

    ^ This.

    It needs to get balanced out one way or the other, but the way it currently stands, there is a serious power imbalance in the Senate between the East Coast and the West Coast.

    This is because when CA became a state, it had a population of less than 100k. The state lines in the West were drawn when practically no one lived there, and it didn't matter that the states were so huge and the lines were so arbitrary.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    And Washington prefers to keep it that way through their onerous land ownership and restrictions throughout the west.

    If the feds own and control more than half of the land in your state, is it truly your state? I say not really.

  • Zeb||

    Whose state? No state should be anybody's state. The land is owned by the individual land owners.

    But I do agree, it's ridiculous for the federal government to own so much land in the West.

  • Redcard||

    It is ridiculous that anyone owns land

  • Mazakon||

    I can't imagine living without the protections of the U.S. Constitution (or what's left of it).

    What I can't imagine is living under a Californian Constitution on its own, national level. This I find to be especially true when one considers that even new, a California Constitution would still become a target for new interpretations, just as those within likely have different notions of social justice. Also, if California did become its own nation, I cannot see how it wouldn't become another one that feels the US should lend it aid still but won't have the benefits of the U.S. Constitution.

  • Calidissident||

    States cannot be broken up without the consent of their legislature, so this is never going to happen (though I would be supportive of the idea as a Californian).

  • Longtobefree||

    "Californians would be better equipped to govern themselves fairly if the state were broken up."

    What does fair have to do with it??!!
    This is politics.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I dismiss the "Calexit" idea, however, because it would make California its own nation. I can't imagine living without the protections of the U.S. Constitution (or what's left of it). It won't happen. Plus, it's reportedly advocated by a man with Russian ties.

    Trump has advocated Calexit? *ducks*

    Fun factoid: at one time at least* the Texas state constitution included a provision where TX could split up in to 5 different states. I'm not sure what the mechanism for doing so was/is, if it requires a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, a ballot initiative, or something else.

    *I'm not sure if that provision is still in the current constitution or if that was left out of the new state constitution that was ratified after the Civil War.

  • eyeroller||

    California is too large in size and population to be governed fairly.

    Every group of people larger than 1 is too large to be governed fairly.

  • sportsvine||

    I would be okay with this ONLY if other states can also break up. Wouldn't it be similarly reasonable if Texas can break up, so Austin, Houston, San Antonio and Dallas/Fort Worth can have states centered around them while some of the more rural parts of Texas can form states around those other areas?

    While we are at this idea, lets consider many other states… Should Nebraska, with moderate- to left leaning cities of Omaha and Lincoln, have their interests overruled by the very conservative rest of the state? If it is unfair for someone in the rural areas of the San Joaquin Valley to be routinely overruled by the liberal population centers (and never have their interests represented) then it would also be unfair for the liberal citizens of Omaha and Lincoln to be routinely overruled by the conservative rest of the state?

    Chris Vines

    Chadron, NE

  • Agammamon||

    I'm up for it. We'll make Phoenix its own state.

  • ||

    Yes - although obviously the Fed Gov as presently constituted would resist this, as the race to gerrymander smaller and smaller Senate districts would drive the Senate population higher than the House's.

    Traditionally (i.e. prior to the 18th century), cities have been independent of the surrounding countryside - there was a set of laws that governed the countryside, which was controlled by the landed aristocracy, while cities were relatively independent and made their own laws.

    The push of the "total state" to take control of the cities is largely what resulted in the cities taking control of the "total state."

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    After reading this thread and hearing good arguments on both sides, it seems the only solution is to let the 51% rule with an iron hand over the 49%

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    The one true answer; everything else is just words on paper.

  • ||

    I don't want the world. I just want your half.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Its funny, but there are good arguments on both sides of some kind of system that protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but no matter how you build that system there is no other possible outcome except that occasionally the 49% will win over the 51.

  • EscherEnigma||

    As the saying goes, democracy is the worst government ever, excepting all the rest that have been tried.

  • Redcard||

    Yup. In a democracy that is better than 44% ruling with an iron fist over the 56%

  • Calidissident||

    Though this idea is presented and often discussed in contrast to Calexit, ironically I think Calexit would be the best chance for it to actually happen. As I mention above, no state can be broken up without the consent of the legislature, so it will never happen as long as California remains in the US. However, if California were to ever consider leaving (which I don't think is a very realistic possibility for the foreseeable future for a lot of reasons. I don't think there's a much support for it as loud echo chambers suggest, and there a ton of legal, economic, and logistical issues along with it), I can see the federal government insisting that they allow parts that want to stay to remain. In that case, it would probably be pretty easy to divide the state in two. Assuming there isn't overwhelming support statewide for the measure, it would probably have majority support in LA county, the Bay Area, and a few other coastal counties as well as maybe the Sacramento area. But the rest of the state would likely be against it with maybe a couple exceptions.

    If the map looked like this (this is from Boxer's 2010 Senate win, where she beat Fiorina by 10 points statewide), it'd be pretty easy to split, with only 1 or 2 counties at most on each side probably not having their wishes honored.

    https://tinyurl.com/mokkobm

  • ||

    That's pretty much exactly how I would draw it if we were to split in two, with the understanding that OC and Ventura are probably just going to have to suck it up. Geographically, I think you could even leave Imperial as part of the blue coast and SLO as part of the red interior. Yolo is probably the toughest one, but on balance it should probably be part of the interior.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't see why the OC would have to go, it's connected to the rest of the "new" state. Are you saying that because it's so connected to LA? That's true, but I think it has plenty of potential on its own, and it's pretty close to San Diego, not to mention the IE has another 4 million people in close proximity.

    I'm not sure they'd want to have both states be contiguous as much as possible, so I was thinking SLO and Ventura would probably get added to the coastal blue state or country (I'm originally from SLO county and although I don't live there any more I wouldn't like this, but I'm just talking about what would make the most sense and how it would probably happen IMO) while Imperial and Alpine get added to the new, interior state. Other than those 4 counties, every where else would be in line with how they voted, if this was indeed the map.

    I'm curious what makes you say that about Yolo county? I'm not familiar with it, but I see it went for Clinton by 40 points in the election (10 more than the state did) so if secession was over 50% it would likely be voting to leave. And if they were splitting the state in two while both remain part of the Union, why would you put it in the state it strongly disagrees with, despite being connected to the other one?

  • ||

    I'm going on naked geography - not politics.

    Much of the LA-OC border literally runs right down the center of major traffic arteries where one side of the street is LA and the other is OC, and Long Beach, which is in LA County, serves as a sort of surrogate urban center for OC (at least it did when I lived in OC 25 years ago). OTOH, there's a clear geographic separation of OC and Riverside Counties where the 91 crosses the Santa Ana Mountains.

    Ventura seems similarly inextricable from LA, but I don't know Ventura as well. I also haven't spent much time in SLO, but it seems to me pretty isolated from the rest of the coast, and like it could just as easily join the Valley as join Santa Barbara or Monterey, but maybe it can't really be separate from Santa Barbara (you would clearly know better than I).

    Yolo is tough because it straddles the Delta. There are ways in which it's outer Bay Area, but most of the county is Valley farmland, and it's essentially a satellite of Sacramento (UC Davis is there, for example - which I suspect is why it trends blue). Outer Contra Costa has the same trouble - Brentwood and Discovery Bay are really more connected with Stockton than they are with Richmond or Walnut Creek.

    But it could be that simply re-drawing some county lines would take care of it.

  • Calidissident||

    First off, I wanted to say that I didn't mean to include a "not" at the beginning of the second paragraph in my last post.

    I live in LA and my grandma lives in the OC just down the county line, so I am familiar with how much it runs together. But I think that could be addressed by, as you suggest, redrawing county lines, or just sucking up the difficulties of having a border there rather than tossing all of OC in with the new liberal country (if this is just creating two states the border is much less of an issue to begin with). It's also possible the US would explore a free movement agreement with the newly independent California (assuming a scenario where they're even willing to allow this, which I don't think is likely, so this is all highly speculative). The fact that it wouldn't border Mexico would make it more viable than if it included the whole state.

  • Lord_at_War||

    (which I don't think is a very realistic possibility for the foreseeable future for a lot of reasons...)

    Richter 8.9-- we'll wave bye-bye to you.

  • esteve7||

    leftists are such sore losers. they lose one election after nominating the most corrupt establishment candidate ever, and now they want to leave the US. Bunch of fucking whiners

    it's almost as if government should be as local as possible so people have a voice (Austin isn't overrided by the rest of Texas, the central valley isn't given a big middle finger by the eco-frauds, etc). Wait that was racist etc right up until the moment Trump was elected, now progs think it's the best ever.

    Jesus my facebook wall is a bunch of idiot sheep that have no concept of history or introspection

  • EscherEnigma||

    We've had eight years of hearing about Alaska and Texas and Florida wanting to secede.

    So I don't think it's "leftists", it's just people.

  • esteve7||

    yeah and that was met with ridicule from all sides of the spectrum, and this is being taken seriously and with an actual ballot measure

  • Curmudgeon44||

    Hell it might not be a good idea, but Texas has always been halfway sold on secession.

  • Redcard||

    Which only show how ridiculously easy it is to get a ballot measure.

  • EscherEnigma||

    California is kind of infamous for having a stupidly-low bar for getting measures on the ballot.

    So no, no one is taking it seriously.

  • mjerryfuerst||

    The article notes that in CA those in rural areas have less say in state government than they should. In other states, such as MO and KS, those in urban areas have less say then they should.

    Possible justifications for keeping CA as one state (a) the management of water resources and (b) added overall costs of multiple state bureaucracies.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Well, it makes that claim. But it's assuming people will accept "proportional representation isn't fair" without bothering to make the argument.

  • Redcard||

    And in North Carolina when cities choose to have their own bathroom policies, they meet at midnight to dictate what those suits in Charlotte can do.

  • Bubba Jones||

    It won't happen unless they can "guarantee" it maintains the status quo in the senate. They would need to gerrymander 6 Dems and 4 Republicans.

  • esteve7||

    States, like congressional districts, should be broken up by grouping similar people with similar interests in a similar geographic area. That's the entire point. I've driven all throughout California, and the northern mountainous areas, bay area, central valley, high desert/south eastern CA, LA, and San Diego/OC are worlds apart from each other. The distinct areas should be allowed to govern themselves. What you have here is 3 big population centers (LA, Bay Area, Sacramento) controlling over the whole state, so their concerns are completely ignored.

    I know you can make the argument for that in other states too, but CA is the biggest one, so it's the easiest target.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If Urban areas in California have "control", it's because most of the state is Urban. Just like in states where "rural voters" have control, it's because there's just more of them.

    Excepting gerrymandering, that's how democracy works.

    And if you're going to preserve the "democracy" part, then trying to split things up to give the "right" people more influence is gerrymandering, be out at the state, Congressional, county, or whatever level.

    There's good reasons to split up states. Gerrymandering, regardless of which group you want to empower, is not one of them.

  • ||

    Wow. You just really refuse to understand this, don't you?

    In your view, what is purposes of even having state governments? Why not just do away with them?

  • Redcard||

    Wanting to split a state because the state government is not doing what some in the state want is actually wanting to do away with a state government.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Wow. You just really refuse to understand this, don't you?"
    Group A, which is a minority group in State B, does not have a large amount of influence in State B.
    This is a direct consequence of proportional representation.
    Y'all, feeling that Group A should have more influence, have suggested re-drawing state-lines in a way to put Group A into a majority.

    ... how is that not describing gerrymandering?

    "In your view, what is purposes of even having state governments? Why not just do away with them?"
    At the moment? I guess the purpose is to piss you off by California existing. Seeing as you've ignored my repeated comments that I'm actually in favor of splitting the state up, just opposed to having "gerrymandering" as one of the intended goals, I'm not sure it's worth either of our time to elaborate further.

  • ATBirch||

    As a correction, I'd point out that whilst Nigel Farage and UKIP were instrumental in getting the referendum in the first place, it is inaccurate to say that he and Arron Banks 'won' the referendum. Arron Banks' Grassroots Out/Leave.EU competed for but lost the bid to be the official leave campaign. The actual campaign, the one that won the referendum, was Vote Leave, run by Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings. Had Leave.EU won the designation it is highly likely that the UK would have voted to remain (if they had spent more time on the campaign pre-designation actually campaigning instead of attacking Vote Leave, this may have been different).
    Detailed history (from Cummings' perspective) can be found here: https://goo.gl/nht9T5
    This article also supports my point: https://goo.gl/MnpBXJ
    Arron Banks is simply is self-publicist, who has been touring the US and elsewhere claiming to do things he never did to stroke his own ego.
    Disclosure: I worked on the ground campaign for Vote Leave. Dealing with Leave.EU's shenanigans was part of my job.

  • Longtobefree||

    Amazing! The politicians keep the money near the capital, and maybe a couple of large cities that reliably vote their way? What a concept. Oh, wait. Georgia, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, etc.
    California will break up after secession.

  • DRM||

    Just what we need, California having more influence in the US Senate. Yeah, that'll be really liberty-promoting.

    At least the Republican Party has the occasional not-totally-awful politician (Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash). Name the last Democrat at the national or gubernatorial level who was comparable.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    The Progressive/Democrat Party will never willingly surrender the 55 Electoral College votes they hold in the palm of their hands.

  • Curmudgeon44||

    Tim Draper? Wasn't he Cap'n Crunch, with the blue boxes and LSD and everything?

  • Bruce 6225||

    California is a forge that hammers out the impurities in it's people. It's unfairness and taxes are there only to drive out the weak and unworthy. Those who remain are tempered rock hard and pure. The perfectly formed collectivist dweeb is no an easy thing to make.

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    Go State of Jefferson!!! One movement that does seem to be forgotten is the movement to break the state into two pieces, Northern California and Southern Oregon becoming "The State of Jefferson" and Southern Cali remaining, you go north of Sacramento and its majority conservatives, moderate Democrats and libertarians, I know, I was born and raised in Mt. Shasta, we didn't like the fact we got overruled every time by the libtard control freaks, they were able to also vote themselves our water "rights". People make the mistake of saying "I wish California would fall into the ocean" thinking its wall to wall nutcase, control freak liberal types, I always correct them with "No you wish Southern California would fall into the ocean" than I explain to them the whole state isn't nuts, its just Sac Town and south that is brimful of the idiot nutcases always wanting to control every facet of everybody elses' lives.

  • Redcard||

    You do not produce that water to have rights over others who have the same rights to a natural resource. They belong to the state.
    Move to Oklahoma.

  • john_bunyan||

    "But there's no reason we can't give new boundaries to old states. If Rhode Island—not much larger than Orange County—can have two senators and a Capitol, why can't there be several states formerly known as California? Thanks to Farage, Banks, Draper and Baugh for helping us revisit a vital question."

    It's the population that makes the size of the state, not the geographical boundary. Rhode Island is the second most densely populated state so it's more substantial than it looks.

    California has about 29 million people, Orange County has about 3 million people, Rhode Island about 1 million. There are actually seven less populated states than Rhode Island. Wyoming is at the bottom with about half a million.

    If there's any candidate for losing two senators, it's Wyoming, not Rhode Island. Yeah, I'm from Rhode Island, we get this all the time.

  • SecedeTexas||

    Not sure why you didn't mention Jefferson, which is the most likely scenario (already passed by most counties that would be a part of the new state) or why you dismissed Calexit. Very inconsistent of you.

  • SecedeTexas||

    Not sure why you didn't mention Jefferson, which is the most likely scenario (already passed by most counties that would be a part of the new state) or why you dismissed Calexit. Very inconsistent of you.

  • Redcard||

    carefully analyzed the Six Californias proposal, and found it would have created a competitive situation in the three more conservative states

    LOL, here's the proposal.

    It'll create six states with populations of 11.5 mn, 10.8 mn, 6.8 mn, 4.2 mn, 3.8 mn and 950k.

    Yup, "competitive" means that the three states with least populations get six senators, compared to the 2 from the second most populous state bigger than the three put together.

    And the mooching will continue with fewer taxes raised than welfare taken in.

  • jelabarre||

    I've thought the same thing for New York State. Splitting off NYC would do much to restore representation to the rest of the state. As it is, the major population center of NYC (and perhaps Buffalo to a lesser extent) runs roughshod over the wants and interests of everyplace else. Kicking NYC out would restore balance.

    As an alternative, I've thought things like elections for US Senate (and perhaps governor as well) should be tallied on a county-level basis (popular votes tallied for each county, that total becoming an EC-type "vote"). The population centers are still adequately represented by, get this, the House of REPRESENTATIVES.

  • Mike W.||

    It might not make the most logical sense, but there might be a greater chance politically if you try to break it into an odd number of pieces, e.g., two Democratic and one Republican or three Democratic and two Republican, so as to maintain the balance of power in the Senate.

  • DLTooley||

    Meaningless unless you advocate for this on a National 'redistricting' basis I believe this would require moving the legal sovereignty of the state to municipalities and rural districts

    Orange County is NOT a model for this. Their corporate socialist corruption of local governm not real estate and 'public' lawyers is the root of a cycle of abuse and which degenerates us all.

    Consider Reagan's gubernatorial assistant Bruce Nestande and former County Commissioner Mr Nestande ended his career with a dui, hit and run, and felony insurance fraud-the model for Jack Abramoff'a presidential college republicans

  • Redcard||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online