Slashdot Mirror
Goodbye, California? Tim Draper Proposes a 6-Way Split
Daniel_Stuckey writes that venture capitalist Tim Draper has mooted a plan "to split California into six separate states, he told Tech Crunch, with Silicon Valley emerging as the richest and most powerful of all. The mockery is already pouring in. Of course a rich tech guru wants Silicon Valley to get its own government, so it can be freed from the dusty laws and regulations of California 1.0. Of course a deep undercurrent of self-aggrandizing narcissism runs through the proposal — only one other state-to-be gets an actual name, (inexplicably, 'Jefferson') and the rest are lazily affixed with topographical descriptors: West, South, Central, and North California...Yes, in shaping his doctrine, Draper has conjured the perfect blend of Seasteading's offshore tech nirvana lawlessness, boilerplate Tea Party antiestablishmentarianism, and good ol' secessionist chutzpah."
Any mention of 'Splitting up California' is just tempting fate at this point..
I've been looking for an excuse to rearrange the stars.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
Of course a rich tech guru wants Silicon Valley to get its own government, so it can be freed from the dusty laws and regulations of
Replace "tech guru" with "cotton plantation owner" and suddenly it all makes sense.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
He's never heard of the "House of Representatives"?
Or is he just unhappy that each state gets an equal vote in the Senate?
Because it's a preexisting movement: http://www.jeffersonstate.com/
I think we should do the opposite, and merge all 50 states into one single one. Therefore eliminating all the duplication of government, and provide one streamlined service for everything. That would be a much better direction to go.
It could be argued that Silicon Valley has benefitted the most from the California taxpayer. This proposal doesn't sound too bad as long as Old California's debt is distributed to the new states in a equitable way. The problem would be defining equitable.
There is a really small but similar sentiment in Illinois too. The people who live in rural Illinois feel like the people who live in Chicago and the suburban areas surrounding Chicago disproportionately affect Illinois politics. They feel that the state would be better without Chicago.
And could they please take Texas and Florida with them?
California is such a large state that it ends up having being ruled by the whims of the people of LA. Everything from gun laws, to environmental regulations, to labor laws... or put another way the only reason it's a blue state is because of LA. The number of counties hat end up being 'red counties' is fairly substantial. But they usually get overruled by their opposition. Of course IS how representative democracy works... but at the level of population containing with wildly different political ideologues as you have in California you start to have a good example of 'the tyranny of the majority'.
This is hardly an idea without precedent would better serve the needs of the constituents while be very much in the spirit of the Constitution. Virginia, New York and Massachusetts split and gave us a handful of other states. When states become two politically oriented in one direction for only a given geographical ares while ignoring the wishes and values of the other states they can and should split.
The Constitution was designed to balance the power of the people so that you didn't have any one area with too large of an influence over the others. It was then designed to ensure all areas would have equal representation in the Senate. It was one of the most careful balances of power ever crafted and has served as a model for countless other governments ever since.
When people feel the need to systematically disregard the political views of a given portion of their constituency they no longer deserve to have that constituency as they no longer represent their needs. California, Texas, New York, Illinois and a couple of other states have long areas on both the left and the right that have systematically ignored large portions of their population for many years.
The only reason it is this big is because it was established at a time when the population was MUCH lower. Were you to do the same thing in the east coast but in reverse, you might get all of new england as ONE state.
Now do you understand? California is much too big.
The government is almost indifferent to voter opinion because they can always play one part of the state off the other part. Which means they never have to do anything anyone wants. They just mommy/daddy the whole thing and then lie when that doesn't work.
Look. It needs to split because its unweldy, inherently corrupt, and incapable of serving the local needs of its residents.
Everything revolves around Sacramento which is the least consequential portion of the state BESIDES for the politics. Its our version of Washington DC. What does DC do? Tell people what to do. Does it produce anything? Nope. Does it create anything? Nope. It just collects the taxes and decides what to do with it all.
Genius ideas like our "bullet" train which as everyone knows is a giant fiasco... which we knew it would be from the start... because a bullet train in California makes about as much sense as a beach resort on the moon.
But it sounds good to the twits in Sacramento so whatever.
Look, you don't like his plan to split the state... Fine. It doesn't really matter what the plan is so long as its reasonable. We just need a more local government in california. A government that actually lives where we live and cares about us because they're ACTUALLY our neighbors. Sacramento doesn't care about San Diego. It doesn't care about the Imperial Valley. It only cares about Los Angeles because that is where most of the votes come from. But it only cares about it in so far as those votes are concerned. Etc.
Too big. Split it. Even in half isn't enough. It needs to be broken into something like three to six pieces.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
There is a really small but similar sentiment in Illinois too. The people who live in rural Illinois feel like the people who live in Chicago and the suburban areas surrounding Chicago disproportionately affect Illinois politics. They feel that the state would be better without Chicago.
I can actually understand that sentiment. But the California equivalent would be Central Valley or far northern secessionists. Silicon Valley can't really make the same kind of argument, because it is already very influential in California politics. Of course, it shares that influence with Los Angeles rather than having it entirely to itself, but the Bay Area is one of the state's main political power bases.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It really should be pointed out that this guy's idea is in no way new. There has been calls for breaking up California into a number of smaller states for years. Mostly for the reason I put into my previous post. In short: having a very large population being nominally controlled by the whims of LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state)
For those of you who haven't been out there, when you walk along the streams, you will see signs that say "DO NOT DRINK FROM THE STREAM!".
Why?
Because they are heavily polluted.
From what?
Silicone Valley companies that operated before our environmental laws existed.
Tragedy of the commons indeed.
Business people are too irresponsible not to be regulated.
A split that puts Marin in a different state from SF doesn't make a lot of sense, considering how much commuting goes across the Golden Gate. The greater SF Bay Area should at least be in the same state.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
number of people that would like to see the South go. They take in more federal dollars than they give while electing Representatives that campaign against receiving those dollars. They're largely the reason the rest of the Country can't have socialized medicine.
Personally I can't see abandoning them, but then again I think the point of civilization isn't to protect property but to improve the lives of everyone. That's a fundamental philosophy that a lot disagree with.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It should be North and South, split it just North of Los Angeles.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I've lived in a number of areas of the country. The common political element that rose above all the rest is the differences between the large cities and the rural areas. So, instead of a split by area, make each large city -- San Francisco/San Jose, Los Angeles/Hollywood -- its own state. (What to do about Sacremento? Is it a city or a condition as the State capitol?) Then City interests could be served by the City States, and the rest of the state with its agriculture base would be able to set policies and law for their own.
Other states/areas could be split the same way: Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington DC area, Michigin (peal Detroit from the rest of the State), New York/New Jersey/Connecticut...and the list goes on. We could combine small states into large states -- think Providence Rhode Island versus the rest of the State.
I'm not sure the Democrats would go for this.
Jefferson was proposed for parts of southern Oregon and northern California as far back as 1941, according to Wikipedia. I've seen a sign for the State of Jefferson Chamber of Commerce along I-5 somewhere in that area.
Such a set of states (such a set of states)
Such a lovely face
exactly, Smaller governments are easier to maintain. I am all for more choice in the country. I would love if the same thing happened in NY, make NYC and long island into their own states and leave upstate NY as its own state. Where I live, the hudson valley we pay more in taxes and get less back than northern NY or the city all while we have to worry about our bridges 50 miles 75 miles north of the city tolls going up for one example, when the money is being used down in NYC not up here.
I am a firm believer in "think local first" If we could keep more of our own money in our own communities rather than giving it to the feds and state to ship all over the country and world we would all be better off
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It's a good idea, because California, all by itself, has the 8th largest economy in the whole world. It doesn't need the rest of America.
Maybe Oregon and Washington would like to join it, plus some of the other western states like Nevada. All together, they'd easily be the most economically powerful country on Earth, home of all the major tech industries, and free from the idiocy in Washington (DC; the state should rename itself to eliminate this association) and the east coast states, especially the South.
What about IP laws if they secede then they may lose rights.
The US already has too many political subdivisions. We need to combine states into larger political entities (12-15 large states) rather than split the existing ones up.
"Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
6 pieces is really too much, I think. A better plan is to start with the 38 States proposal from the 70s, and update it a bit for the times.
the up of michigan whats to be on it's own as well.
make long inland / NY city into it's own state.
Also cut up Texas into as many as five states,
Wouldn't secession be illegal?
More generally, wouldn't any movement to secede be considered sedition, and thus subject those involved in it to several years in prison?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No comment on whether or not the state of Jefferson would ever be able to support itself without the rest of California, but Tim Draper didn't pull that particular state out of the ether. I have some parents that used to live up in North State, and the hill folk there love the idea of Jefferson.
They even have a website: http://www.jeffersonstate.com/
---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
I think you'll find this sentiment in the agricultural areas of most states that have a lot of agricultural area and a few large (1 million +) metropolitan areas, as the metro areas are usually much more liberal than the agricultural areas. Their primary issues are often quite different also. Look at North Carolina, which lumps most of the liberals into a district that is Charlotte, Raleigh, and the interstate highway between them.
Nah California can go fuck itself. You're liberals aren't realistic and you have way too many conservatives.
Signed, Cascadia
I've often said that when times get tough, you find out what people are really like; when times are good and everyone has plenty, then it's easy to be nice, and courteous, and generous, but when times get tough, you find out who's really like that, and who's just been putting on a false face. In this case what we discover from tough times is who's actually smart, and who's actually dumb as a box of rocks. Splitting up California would wreck havoc with everyone in the former State, and would likely throw the entire U.S. into chaos, and all for the greed and lust for power of (excuse my using an over-used metaphor) the 1%. What they'd actually be doing is very transparent: Leave behind the poorer parts of the former California, so the rich don't have to be "burdened" by them anymore. For the northernmost parts of the State, you may as well just merge it with Oregon in that case, so you can have one larger state full of poor people living in relatively rural areas, all without anywhere near enough jobs to keep them all housed, clothed, and fed. Give the central valley a new spanish name, so the people who live and work there, working the fields, will feel more at home. I don't think I need to go on, you all get the picture, probably without my help in the first place. Of course like all rich despots this wouldn't go like they planned, the northern State could cut off all the water they've been sending to the south and hold it for ransom, jacking the price way up, and the central state could make the food they're growing so expensive that even the richest would be shocked at their grocery bill.
This guy needs to be slapped.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
SV has successful industry and a tax base and some hope of supporting itself. As opposed to the blithering morons who want to secede and form North Colorado (or Metherado as one wag said) who apparently have no idea who is actually paying for their schools and roads and police...
Not to mention the idea is entirely retarded and the product of depraved minds?
So when will we see the greater NYC area turned into a single state?
The trend towards devolution and smaller, more responsive states is brewing in Europe, so it's no surprise it's also happening here. Is it really democracy when your elected leaders are hundreds of miles away?
"Sir, I'll see your 8 Californias, and raise you 13 Vermonts."
Pontificating about jerrymandering states isn't really "newsworthy" if there are no real stakes. If it were actually feasible to jerrymander Senate seats (as can be done for the House of Representatives at the state government level), other states would copy it, which is exactly why it would never happen.
Gently reply
So long as these states are jointly and severally liable for all the debt California has rung up so far, I've no objection. (For future debt, they're on their own - and I'd avoid buying bonds issued by most of 'em.)
An unintentional Code Geass reference would have knocked me out of my chair!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Can't speak for his particular proposal (I haven't looked at it), but the idea of splitting up California has been around for years, and makes a lot of sense. It's far larger and more diverse than most other states, and that makes it really hard to govern. You basically have the SF bay megalopolis (with more population than most other states), the LA/San Diego megalopolis (ditto), the central valley (sparsely populated but with enormous agricultural wealth), and huge rural areas that in many cases don't want to have anything to do with the cities.
This also would gain California much more influence in the federal government (more senators, more electoral votes).
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
The House is where population is directly represented. The Senate is where States are directly represented. The Senate was supposed to protect the Sovereignty of States (which function was seriously harmed by the 17th Amendment) and limit the ability of a tyranny of the majority. I.e. the lightly populated states could combine forces to stop a majority in the House, which will inevitably be controlled by the big cities.
The interesting thing at the moment is that the Senate is more controlled by the big cities. (Seattle has two Senators, the rest of Washington gets ignored in that chamber.) Since not all House districts have a major city, they still listen to the countryside on occasion.
"the point of civilization isn't to protect property but to improve the lives of everyone. That's a fundamental philosophy that a lot disagree with."
I might well disagree, depending on who defines "improve the lives of everyone". The world has plenty of unhappy experience with those who are convinced they can run other peoples lives better than they can.
Things have changed in 40 years. Not that much, but some: just look at the populations of cities in the rust-belt states then and now. They've shrunk. Southern states (east and west) have gained population. Phoenix, for example, is much, much larger than it was in the 70s.
Also, the 38-state plan was made by some college class. It was based on some really good principles and ideas, such as making sure no metro areas cross state lines, however it surely didn't involve actually going around the country and asking people everywhere which nearby areas they'd like to be in the same state as, or not. A real reorganization needs to have a lot more stakeholder input than that.
That will be cool.
We would impose an import tariff on all goods leaving California and we will give tax incentives to companies to move to the other 49 states. You will no longer enjoy all that pork from US military bases or contracts. Oh and you will have to pay 100% of your welfare, medicaid, and medicare expenses. Any of that technology that originates from federal grants will move out, and ITAR will prevent any new tech being easily exported to California.
Let's know how it works out.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
"No comment on whether or not the state of Jefferson would ever be able to support itself without the rest of California,"
Support itself at what level of government meddling? Jefferson probably would not be able to support the level of intrusive and all-encompassing supervision, nor provide the level of financial support to it's citizens that is in vogue at UC Berkeley. But it should be able to provide the level of services that its citizens actually feel they need.
Trivial case, do they need a formal Animal Control Department, or is the shotgun in the closet adequate to the task?
In a prison-type way.
1) CA has a larger economy than most other nations on earth.
2) CA pays more to the federal government than it gets back. (something people who bitch a lot never bother to look up.)
3) CA pays more to the federal government than any other state.
I think they should split up or change how senators are allocated because it's totally moronic that small nothing states are on a fully equal footing with much larger states. Senators have too much power too... which made far more sense when they were picked by state government and not by popular vote, as the founders intended (they also didn't intend House seats to be capped.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I was noticing that the boundaries seem arbitrary. For instance, his area 2 goes from the coast north of San Francisco to the Nevada state line. This area incorporates at least three very different cultures. At the coast, Marin County should really be part of the San Francisco, Silicon Valley area. Heading West through the Central Valley to Sacramento is really a completely different area (primarily farming). Then you get to the Sierra Nevada Range which is a third area which is completely different culturally and economically.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
California leaving the union would not end all trade relations with them. If nothing else they will have to keep selling stuff to the rest of the US to pay for their electric bill.
Given they already demand special air quality rules, special water quality rules, and have marked their entire State as carcinogenic, and keep claiming they pay more in taxes than they get back, you would think they would ask to leave.
Stomping off in a huff and shelling a Federal military post on your way out has been previously determined to be not allowable. Asking politely to leave is protected under the First Amendment.
"This also would gain California much more influence in the federal government (more senators, more electoral votes)."
Since the reason to split it up is that the different regions can't agree, it seems unlikely their Senators would agree after splitting up. They would likely net out to about the same.
It could be argued that Silicon Valley has benefitted the most from the California taxpayer.
Anything can be argued. And a lot of the drive behind the secessionist movement is the debt being accumulated by California as a whole. They don't want that debt.
My view is that the only fair way is to allot a fixed amount of debt per citizen (around $5500-6000 per capita) and let the weaker states go bankrupt.
No, there isn't. It does benefit some people who take advantage of the situation, but overall it's a loss for the community as a whole. If people don't like certain policies, they need to vote for better government representatives to enact policies they do agree with, instead of driving to the other side of an arbitrary line. Overall, it's a disaster as you have politicians on each side arguing about all kinds of things like who should pay for bridges linking the sides, and you get much worse services between the two. NYC and New Jersey are a great example of this, as the transit links between the two are terrible (compared to the transit links between Manhattan and the other boroughs; in every case you have to cross a river, but most of the other boroughs get fast and convenient subways).
Just kick them out of the union.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Except some of the same idiocy in the rest of America also exists in CA. CA politicians have supported some of the more awful stuff to come out of DC as much as they have opposed it. And locally you still have the same struggles. One mix that has been proposed before was splitting CA into a North and South - but even that is problematic.
I lived in CA from 1979 to 1992.
The entire time I was there, and on until today, I have heard talk of splitting up the state.
It's sad that an artifact of the nation's early history results in a Senate where a few square post-independence states with tiny populations are effectively able to veto ideas supported by very large majorities of Americans. Splitting states to provide relatively equal populations per Senate district would go a long way towards eliminating the existing gridlock in American politics.
There is simply no reason beyond historical accident why the 40 million people of California have two senators, while the combined 3 million people of the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana have eight senators.
Go for it. I'm willing to call your bluff.
It's sad that an artifact of the nation's early history results in a Senate where a few square post-independence states with tiny populations are effectively able to veto ideas supported by very large majorities of Americans.
It's a political check on the urban areas.
Yes, that is its political effect, and it is extremely anti-democratic. But the reason it exists is simply that independent states varied in size at the time of the Constitutional convention. There was no intention at that Convention to give rural people a political check over those living in cities.
watching too much Jericho I see,
I think the Mormons had suggested creating one gigantic state in the great plans back in the 1800's. That would have solved your problem.
While there's no separatist sentiment, Washington has the same problem - the largely rural are east of the Cascades feels disenfranchised because of the influence of the much more populous and more urban Puget Sound area. But even within the Puget Sound region, there are splits... over here in west sound, we're far more rural than the Eastside.
I think you are confusing land area with population. If one looks at races that the entire state votes on, one-person-one-vote, for governor, federal Senators, and President, California has been quite blue for some time.
For example, the last Republican presidential candidate to carry California was George H. W. Bush in 1988.
Smaller governments are easier to maintain.
More importantly, smaller governments are easier to resist.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think the flaw in your logic is the belief that democracy is an ideal that ought to be strived for. Also, I question your assertion that the Senate wasn't intended as a check on urban areas. It gave the rural southern states representation they wouldn't have had if population was the only metric, especially considering that blacks only counted as 3/5th of a person. Without the senate the south would have been similar to the thirteen colonies compared to England (which, as the urban centers in the north grew exponentially, eventually happened and caused a civil war).
Personally, I don't think it's right for people in cities a thousand+ miles away from my rural home to dictate the laws around here because there's more of them. Democracy only works on a very small scale. When it's expanded from sea to shining sea it becomes a tyranny throughout most the land, whether it's a tyranny for of most the people or not.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Last year, California sent $292.6 billion in federal taxes to the US government. California received $258.9 billion in federal spending. In other words, the federal government received nearly $34 billion dollars more from the state of California than was spent in the state.
Let's see how it works out indeed.
Wouldn't secession be illegal?
Nope, not at all. The right of a state to secede was never tested in court, only suppressed on the battlefield.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The purpose of the Senate is to be undemocratic.
Whenever you see someone complaining that the US is a republic not a democracy, this is the sort of thing they are talking about.
California has a huge agriculture industry, you idiot.
That's why the Confederacy won the US Civil War.
This doesn't affect the nation at large the way a split would do, but there's a California group that's just gotten approval to start gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that would create an Assembly district for every 5,000 residents, and a Senate district for every 10,000 residents. They wouldn't all go to Sacramento, but rather themselves designate from among their number the same number of representatives (80 Assembly, 40 Senate) for each legislative body as we currently have. The advantages are said to be a kneecapping of special interests' ability to influence elections, a drastic reduction in the amount of money needed to get elected, and a much more diffuse and responsive legislature. Additional details via the link. I haven't made my mind up about this, but it's an interesting idea.
It could be argued that Silicon Valley has benefitted the most from the California taxpayer.
That cannot be argued, because it is totally backwards! Do you have any idea how much tax revenue both Apple and Google ALONE bring into the state? Never mind tons of VC money flowing into companies there, which flows into the state through income taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes on things the government buys... That is money flowing in from all over the world that California benefits hugely from.
If it were not for Silicon Valley, the state of California would look like Detroit thanks to the policies and regulations they have enacted!
It is only fair to split up the debt though because the people across the state voted for the people and policies that brought on the debt. It's just that the Silicon Valley section will pay off their debt in a year or two, while in that same timeframe most of the other sections would probably declare bankruptcy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Oh come on it was set up to give rich landowners more power vis a vis cities packed with the unwashed masses
Democracy only works on a very small scale. When it's expanded from sea to shining sea it becomes a tyranny throughout most the land, whether it's a tyranny for of most the people or not.
Exactly, which is why the country needs to be broken up into smaller, more homogeneous units. Those European countries with the highest standards of living in the world, and the least amounts of corruption, are all small and relatively homogeneous culturally. They don't constantly argue internally over issues like abortion, or the role of government, or socialized healthcare. Democracy is a good thing, compared to the alternatives, but as you say, it just doesn't work on a large scale. The only rational solution is to reduce the scale, by breaking apart the country.
It's a game played all over the world. Just yesterday we here in Britain got to see the same debate play out between Vince Cable and Boris Johnson (look them up if you care), vis a vis whether the UK is too London-centric; cue the opinions that the UK would be better off without London and/or vice versa. And there's the minor variant of Scottish independence (based around exactly the same theme)- a referendum on which is due next year.
And Spain has the same thing with Catalonia (and others), and Belgium has got its Flanders/Wallonia issue, and so on and so forth. It seems people are never happy unless they're trying to split countries apart of merge them together in various ways.
Easier to corrupt if you have hundreds of small bodies to corrupt - the UK got rid of its rotten boroughs in 1832
Draper's slipshod plan would actually be a step towards that goal—and towards a government that ceases to favor the concerns of rural voters over the urban ones.
There is already an entity that does the exact opposite of that; The House. The House is proportionally represented and the concerns of urban voters override the concerns of rural voters. By having two separate bodies with sometime conflicting goals they are forced to compromise. If both bodies had the same voting base then they would be exactly the same so why have two bodies.
Mob rule is no better than a monarchy.. This is why the senate exists. Of course, people such as yourself have no trouble with having political checks on people living in rural communities, as that would be the case without the senate. /rolleyes
Well, if this http://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/histmetropop.aspx#tables is correct, the largest city at the time of the constitutional convention would have had 40,000 persons. I'm not sure the rural/urban divide was the dividing issue -- I think it was much more a concern that the small population colony-states would not be well represented in the House, and so needed a check in the Senate. Not the same thing, especially when used as justification for mis-matched representation in states between states that were never independent.
Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. P.S. I am not a crackpot.
God spoke to me
Well, of course, if you don't believe in democracy then it wouldn't bother you that a population of 15 million or so can effectively veto the desires of 315 million persons. The protection of minority rights is vested in the courts, and in the idea of equal justice under law. The Senate is hardly a protector of minority rights -- it is a protector of the huge resource extraction entities and agricultural businesses that dominate rural state politics.
Most people (libertarians excepted) think that government is a voluntary arrangement. That is how they justify taxation as not being theft and draft as not being slavery.
If so, what is wrong with voluntarily merging or splitting?
What is the optimal region of government? Why would the current boundaries be the best?
Truly voluntary organizations (clubs, associations, firms, groups of friends, marriages) merge and split all the time. That is part of experimentation to find better arrangements. If government is voluntary too, why should its boundaries remain static?
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
Ah, the blissful European countries with cultural homogeneity. Perhaps they don't argue internally, I can't say I pay that much attention. I do recall hearing once or twice of the occasional war between one or two of them, and I note that they've attempted to form overarching economic and political structures in hopes of making such wars less common in the future than they've been in the past.
No doubt the internal arguments in the United States would be fewer if Utah, for example, were its own country. But the thought of a nuclear armed Utah doesn't strike me as an improved geopolitical situation.
So, we get California to build a wall around Itself, then we cut off the water and power.
Problem Solved.
People such as myself?
If two demographically different groups are also geographically distant, is one group being larger a reason to give it dominion over the other?
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
If the Federal government hadn't used taxation to effectively eliminate most of state government, "the majority of Americans" could have their coastal utopias and leave the big, square states in peace. Unfortunately, states are forced to clone whatever rules the Federal government comes up with to recover the taxes paid by their citizens. Example: states individually manage their highway systems, but if they want them to be funded they either need to double-tax their citizens, or reduce the speed limit to 65, set the drinking age to 21, and care more about seat belts than safe foul-weather driving.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Rich libertarian has crazy idea. News at .... WTF this isn't news anymore then when the crazy guy on the corner starts talking about aliens.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
...for I have a greater chance of winning the Powerball or Mega Millions lottery than this ever happening. (FYI, I don't buy lottery tickets.)
My point is that this is not going to happen... ever. The state as a whole will not approve of it, Congress will never approve of it (even if it ever becomes less dysfunctional), and politically it's a bad idea. It'll take one powerful state politically and water it down into six.
Now, the idea of a State of Jefferson for the areas of the state north of Redding is not bad in some ways. The conservative nut jobs who live there and in southern Oregon deserve each other. They can run it into the ground. However, this country cannot withstand the existence of another South Carolina.
I think California succession is a better idea given the size of its economy. We Californians can stand on our own. And we wouldn't even have to change the flag. There is a reason why the phrase "California Republic" is written under the grizzly bear.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Yes, that is its political effect, and it is extremely anti-democratic.
How so? Wouldn't it be undemocratic if all the big states could, at the country level, impose laws on the smaller states without the consent of the inhabitants of said smaller states? The federal system grants limited sovereignty to the states, and considers the states as unitary bodies of equal power and importance.
Compare with the situation in the UK, which is made up of 4 constituent countries with vastly different population sizes, and with a parliament with MPs representing (roughly) the same amount of people as each other. There have only been two governments in the last century that would not have had a parliamentary majority without their Scottish seats, therefore the Scottish vote is considered irrelevant. Scotland is at best ignored, and at worst decried as a drain on the UK economy, and "national" UK infrastructure investment is always focused on the south-east of England.
Is that really what you aspire to? A situation where one group of people can consistently outvote another, and sparsely populated areas are deprived of all investment simply because the big guys don't care about who they vote for?
Give me a federal system any day.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Have gnu, will travel.
The only way to kneecap special interests is to limit campaign contributions to a few dollars per voter.
So was resisting the king of england.. This is not a good argument against succession.
Those European countries with the highest standards of living in the world, and the least amounts of corruption, are all small and relatively homogeneous culturally.
What, you mean countries like Switzerland, with its four (very) different national languages?
Like Norway and Sweden, with their Saami's in the north?
Like France, with its Basques, Bretons, Corsicans etc (etc etc)?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
California is already split into numerous pieces. Drawing some lines and formalizing it will allow each of those pieces to govern themselves as they see fit and allow people to stop bitching at each other for tromping on each others "rights".
This is certainly true on paper. In practice California is tied together in ways that aren't easy to undo. Take, for example, disputes over water underlies some of the regional hostility; under the plan region 4 realistically can't gain control of its water resources. It still must supply region 3 and 5 with water lest they dry up and blow away.
A specialized state loses some economic flexibility; in a tech down turn they aren't as buoyed agriculture and vice versa. You lose some economies of scale; wineries in region 2 and farms in region 5 and 6 and biotech companies in region 3 lose access to the life sciences programs at UC Davis. People priced out of region 3 into region 4 will potentially pay income tax in two states.
For better or worse, California is made up of diverse regions that are uncomfortably tied together.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Actually California wouldn't be able to stand on its own; not at all.
Without Arizona, California would be living in the dark. Literally. Arizona provides a huge chunk of the electrons that migrate through California's power grid.
I don't know the exact reasons why (some say it's due to "hippie" liberal politicians not wanting to harm the earth, some say due to greedy private enterprises wanting to drive the costs of electricity up) but regardless of the cause, California outright refuses to upgrade its power grid to supply adequate levels of electricity for its own consumption. Even with Arizona providing as much as it does, California still has to resort to rolling brownouts just to keep its nose above the water (don't confuse these with rolling blackouts.)
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
There are many key differences between Europe and the U.S., while most European countries are homogenous, they also have long standing grudges with their neighbors, which generally is unkonwn in the U.S., except for perhaps a trace or north vs south stemming from a little conflict about 140 years ago. Europeans also tend to identify themselves with their country first and as being European second, wher in the U.S. most of the citizen identify with being an American first, and a Texan, Californian, etc second.
Its not reasonable for there to be such vast disparities in population between the states.
I totally disagree. There were huge divisions even when the original stricture of government was set up. But it makes sense that if you want each state to be an equal participant in government, you have some means to give each equal representation regardless of population.
Otherwise states less populated would get totally overwhelmed by what the more populated states want to do. That is not a good thing. The Senate is there to put the brakes on mere populism.
The whole checks and balances thing is not just a catchy phrase. It's there to keep the government from running unchecked and letting a passionate mob ruin everything.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Switzerland is a bit of an exception with its two languages. The other two are only spoken by very tiny minorities.
Same goes for all your other examples. Your statement is like saying Pennsylvania Dutch is a significant language in the USA.
CA is broke.
California has a $2.4 billion surplus, about same as Texas.
Are you saying that California is ready to go to war for it?
Bear in mind that in the US revolutionary war, there were 3 times as many deaths, per unit of population, as there were during world war 2.
The ends might seem to be worthwhile, but that just makes the means forgivable, not necessarily actually good.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Exactly, which is why the country needs to be broken up into smaller, more homogeneous units. Those European countries with the highest standards of living in the world, and the least amounts of corruption, are all small and relatively homogeneous culturally. They don't constantly argue internally over issues like abortion, or the role of government, or socialized healthcare.
So, something like states?
Funny how conservatives tend to believe in states' rights and liberals don't, while liberals identify more with European culture and solutions while conservatives don't.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Well, you want to abolish the senate, yes? Why else call it 'extremely undemocratic'?
Maybe it's time for the states to call washington's bluff and let the interstates go to hell? It would not be in washington's interest to let that happen.
Not enough to feed the entire population a well rounded diet.. (notice how I didn't resort to name calling?)
The people who live in rural Illinois feel like the people who live in Chicago and the suburban areas surrounding Chicago disproportionately affect Illinois politics. They feel that the state would be better without Chicago.
They certainly affect the level of corruption in Springfield (Illinois state capital ). Since most of the corruption from "the most corrupt state in the union" comes from Chicago/Cook County.
No, I am not. I'm saying that just because an action is illegal doesn't mean it should be discounted out of hand, as your post implies. I am not supporting or opposing succession, just your reasoning.
No, I think it's useful to have a branch of government that has longer terms and fewer members. I just think citizens should have relatively equal representation in it, so that each Senator represents a geographical area with a population of about 3 million people.
I'll bet that if you repeal the winner-take-all rule for electoral votes, things would change dramatically.
But there is some basis for some sort of shake up, no pun intended. With raw population density being pretty much the only factor in determining representation levels in Sacramento, you end up with L.A. and San Francisco (and to a lesser extent, San Diego) determining the fate of the rural and suburban areas. I've believed for some time that federal elections and more specifically campaigns would be very different if winner-take-all rules were abolished. If you look at the breakdown of electoral votes by county rather than by state, you'll see that a much different result. Yet presidential candidates usually blow off rural and suburban America. Imagine if they had to spend more time there.
I'll bet that if central California had as much or more of a say over their fate than L.A. does, they'd tell L.A. that no, as a matter of fact, they aren't going to get any more water from the Sierras without paying for it.
"Wouldn't it be undemocratic if all the big states could, at the country level, impose laws on the smaller states without the consent of the inhabitants of said smaller states?"
No, democracy *means* majority rule. Minority rights are also important, which is why it's important to have a Constitution and a court system to protect the minorities. While the early federation of states might have considered states as equal entities, the reality of our system is that the states are mostly vestiges, the entities which should be represented in DC are called citizens, and the entities actually represented in DC are called corporations (the Senator from ADM, the Senator from Monsanto, the Senator from Boeing, etc...)
Those European countries with the highest standards of living in the world, and the least amounts of corruption, are all small and relatively homogeneous culturally.
And they're currently busy creating a new country called the European Union. Should we extrapolate from your words that they'll see a drop in standards of living once that is actualized?
They don't constantly argue internally over issues like abortion, or the role of government, or socialized healthcare.
Sorry, that Europe doesn't exist in my reality. We have the one with the same sort of internal bickering that other countries in the world have.
Except that populations aren't distributed evenly across the 50 states. The senate provides a counter balance to the congress, which is biased by population, so that rural states with relatively low populations have some influence on what bills get passed. Otherwise, they'd be trampled by the high population states' politics which may or may not work for them (economics and culture). The house and senate complement one another, each addressing the weak points of the other.
Now, the redistricting games both parties play are abhorrent, and that aspect needs fixing, but I don't think we should abolish either house.
The protection of minority rights is vested in the courts, and in the idea of equal justice under law.
And in the operation of the Senate.
The Senate is hardly a protector of minority rights -- it is a protector of the huge resource extraction entities and agricultural businesses that dominate rural state politics.
Which do need the protection, we should note. It's rather easy for urbanites to forget who feeds you and that their needs differ from those of urban areas.
And they're currently busy creating a new country called the European Union. Should we extrapolate from your words that they'll see a drop in standards of living once that is actualized?
It won't be realized. The southern European countries are having massive economic problems because of the union. The Italians are talking about revolution right now. The EU is probably going to break apart in the next 5 years, or at least break into different parts, with the northern countries becoming separate (or having separate currency) from the southern countries.
This shows the problem of trying to unite regions with extremely different cultures. And at least in the EU, they're only mostly trying to make an economic union, rather than making broad laws that affect everyone (such as laws governing social issues).
We have the one with the same sort of internal bickering that other countries in the world have.
I seriously doubt there's any serious disagreement in Iceland over any issues the way we have here in America.
Can we say "Imperial Valley"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Valley#Agriculture
Of course, if the US cuts off the Colorado River, they might be in trouble.
I think you may find you statement incorrect. California may not be were is is today is it wasn't part of the US and it could lose some income etc but I hardly think it would into some starving 3rd world hell hole. http://www.stuffaboutstates.com/california/agriculture.htm http://glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/ca/ca_economy.html
I see you the 8th largest economy and raise you a carrier battle group. Who gets the kaboom stuff?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It's a republic, not a democracy.
With the failure of so many blue cities and states, it should be increasingly more obvious that their philosophy/ideology is wrong
The states with the lowest GDP growth in 2012 were South Dakota, New Mexico, Wyoming, Delaware, and Connecticut. (2 blue, 2 red, 1 purple.)
The states with the highest GDP growth in 2012 were North Dakota, Texas, Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota. (2 red, 3 blue)
Just the fact that ND and SD are on opposite ends of that list should convince you that economic vitality has almost nothing to do with political partisanship.
NorCali -- SF Bay Area (starting from about Monterey/Salinas as its southern border), Humbolt, Lassen, all the way up to the OR border.
SoCali -- Coast south of Monterey all the way down to Mexico border, including all of the LA basin, San Diego and the Mojave area
Joquain -- The central valley from Redding to Bakersfield, and the Sierra Nevadas along the NV state line
Tech biz/hippies/redwoods, hollywood/flakes/deserts, then agriculture/rednecks/mountains. Each one would have its own special economy to live on and is a much better social/attitude split.
Sure. Now, look up how much of the US's goods come in via the ports in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay. After you're done with that, look up how much of what crops for the US's food supply are grown in California's central valley. California would hurt if it were kicked out of the US, but the US would be hurting a lot worse in short order. If you want to see how badly, look back to the last couple of west-coast port strikes. The last one was estimated to be costing the US $1 billion per day, and cut off 40% of the US's imports.
Can we say "Imperial Valley"?
I have a speech impediment, you insensitive clod.
Pontius Pilate
I never said Oregon and Washington should join with California into a single state, with only county divisions separating them. They should stay separate, and in fact California should break up into separate states in a plan like this, so that CA isn't too large compared to the other states. After that, however, the states (or at least some of them, from the northern half of old CA) could join with the states of WA and OR and perhaps a few others into a single country.
Seriously, given a choice, would you rather be in a country with states formed from what used to be the northern half of CA, or would you rather be in a country with places like Florida, Texas, or Louisiana? Considering the strong tech industries in the Bay Area, Portland, and Seattle, you'd think those three regions would want to stick together.
Yes, well, if California could get your tech companies to not dodge their taxes, then they wouldn't be bitching about being broke.
What good will a huge agriculture industry do you if farmers have to keep eating the tax burdens for the billionaires? Need a new farm roads (or new high-speed produce train system) or government subsidies to boost new wind and wave energy generators? Oop, sorry, Silicon Valley says thanks for the awesome shrubbery, but you can go screw yourself.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for destruction of Gerrymandering, and Prop11 was awesome, but unless a such rich state like California can keep from going broke, I'm going to laugh at any plans to divide or succeed from the union. What makes you think dividing won't just help further conquer you, idiot?
... you need to think that one through again.
If CA seceded from the union, they'd have more tax money to work with, and their budget would be balanced (assuming they didn't come up with new things to spend the money on). CA gives a lot more money to the Federal government than they get back, so CA is in effect subsidizing the red states.
Well yes, we here in Europe have fought the occasional war. Because we are actually different countries, with cultural differences. Which is why several European countries that had been asked to vote on the EU Constitution in a referendum voted no (France, Ireland and the Netherlands). Obviously, in the end we all signed it, and now we have essentially a federal government.
Our next war will be a civil war.
Such a massively narcissistic idea. Does he think that the rest of CA, not to mention the rest of the US, is just going to hand him a state because he asks for it? Apparently so. I like the part of his petition where it requires the state to give him his own team of attorneys with unlimited state funds to spend opposing the will of the Attorney General and other state authorities.
If he wants to found his own Monaco with himself in the role of Prince, he can buy any country that's for sale. Europe and the Americas are taken, but I hear that Somalia is available. He can hire Academi (formerly Blackwater) to provide land-based security. It's even got its own navy of pirates with speedboats, Arr!
If he wants to stay in the US, he's got to get support from outside of California. I would go for a coalition with the Colorado secessionists, and the unionists in D.C. and Puerto Rico, who have already voted for statehood. Splitting Texas might be an additional option, but they need a draft map. I think three states would suffice. South Texas would have its capital in San Antonio, North Texas would center around Dallas-Fort Worth. The big question would be whether Austin would agree to combine with Houston, or would demand to have its own state in order to prevent its wierdness from being diluted.
Taxation without representation is tyranny! Statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands & Pacific Territories!
While I see your point, the answer is yes, that's how democracy works. Like it or not, the majority rules. Probably the best solution to make this system more "fair" would be to divide large states (alaska, texas, california, etc) into smaller states so that the effect of this is reduced (it can never be eliminated).
One of the reasons why this issue comes up from time to time in California is because the enabling act which created California (aka the legislation in the U.S. Congress which recognized California as a state) explicitly granted to the California Legislature permission to draw up maps to split the state into two or more additional states at any time in the future. Texas was also given this ability (and presumably was the justification for the language in that enabling act too). Note that most other states don't have this clause, although presumably with a state compact and act of Congress it could still happen.
A state compact BTW is what amounts to be a treaty between U.S. states... something that needs to be ratified by Congress but otherwise is a part of the U.S. legal system.
Every time some kind of political friction happens in California, this clause gets brought up and people start to ask for a split.
No doubt the internal arguments in the United States would be fewer if Utah, for example, were its own country. But the thought of a nuclear armed Utah doesn't strike me as an improved geopolitical situation.
Even being a Utah resident and a part of the dominant religion, this particular sentence is by far one of the most insightful comments I've ever seen on Slashdot. I also have no doubt that Utah (or Deseret as it would likely become) as an independent republic upon a break-up of the federal union would become a nuclear power as well.
It would become a geopolitical nightmare that makes a nuclear armed Iran look tame by comparison, and it is far better that Utah is a part of the American Republic instead of the American version of Afghanistan (where armies come to die and never win).
Here is one person who has drawn a map based on 50 states having equal populations (~6 million at 2010) as response to the problem of unequal state population in the Electoral College and the Senate:
http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/
"The largest state is 66 times as populous as the smallest and has 18 times as many electoral votes."
He gets 5 or 6 states out what is now California.
Go to the link for the map.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Why the hell should CA be on the hook for those? CA didn't force all the rest of the states to vote for ObamaCare or any wars. You all voted for Obama and Bush all by yourselves. Hell, if anyone is to blame, it's Illinois for Obama and Texas for Bush. As for illegals, all the states have them now, and the lack of action to keep them out is again the fault of all the voters, for voting for Bush and Obama.
No, democracy *means* majority rule.
No it does not. "Demos" is not the Greek for "majority", but for "district". "Democracy" is "the rule of the district". In the traditional interpretation, this means "the rule of the district by the people of the district", and this is actually maintained in the federal system because the people of the district do not cede sovereignty in the way they do in a central parliamentary system.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Italian is a minority, but I wouldn't say "tiny". Romansch, yes.
And as for France, while they've made great strides in removing the regional languages, the regional identities and cultures are still pretty strong.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Other than the Basques, it doesn't sound like France's various regions have too much trouble getting along, so there's likely no issue there. The Basques should probably have their own country; their region straddles the France-Spain border, and they've had separatist tendencies for a long time. Spain is definitely not a good example, with 4 different languages, and two of those regions wanting separation (Basque and Catalan). But most other European countries don't have these problems. You mention some other small minority languages like the Saamis, but again that's just like our Amish people speaking Pennsylvania Dutch: they're such a small minority they don't really matter that much, nor do they have too much trouble getting along with the rest of the country or learning the national language (I don't think there's any Amish people who don't speak English). You usually get problems when you have very large groups of people not speaking the same language, having clashing cultures, and trying to live in the same country together. With very small minorities, they usually recognize they're better off as a part of the larger nation, as long as they aren't being oppressed and can mostly do their own thing in peace. I've never heard of Samoans complain about being part of the US, and Puerto Ricans seem to like their US territory status; they get economic benefits from being US territories instead of independent nations with such small populations.
Actually, California's debt load is $132 billion, about a quarter of your $400 billion. Still too high and it will take some time to pay down. But at least it's going down.
One of the reasons California does as well as it does (you laugh, but there's some amazing literal and social engineering to keep the whole mess running) is that the state boundaries are close to the watershed boundaries. Water is *the* currency of the West, for energy and agriculture and domestic use, and having the water-governing bodies under one government is... well, it's bad enough, but it's easier than separate states grandstanding against each other. (GA/TN, recently.)
So the 6 Californias is badly designed and not ambitious enough -- let's reorganize the whole country --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/19/map-the-united-states-of-watersheds/
Tends to keep metro areas together; also biomes often fall within a watershed, and then determine what the most productive land uses are.
The number and capacity of the transit links may suck, but the maintenance quality on the bridge/tunnels between NYC and NJ were much better maintained for decades, largely because of the heavy independence of the governing authority, along with the tolls. While the difficulty of building new links is a valid point, it is somewhat simplistic to argue that political divisions between the states are the biggest issue in transit in the NYC metro area.
Rather than Senators representing geographical areas how about if they represented the relative strength of the different political parties among the electorate? Hold a national election and for every percentage point a party gets it gets one Senator (with some method of distributing the remainders). Under such a system I'd feel free to vote for the party that best matches my political views (which wouldn't be either of the two leading parties) rather than voting defensively. It would definitely raise the status of the minor parties. I imagine the Libertarians would get 10 or 15 Senators and the Greens 5 or10, maybe 1 or 2 for the Constitution party.. It might lead to the splintering of the major parties and after an election cycle or two I doubt either would hold a simple majority any more which would force them to deal with other parties. It would be interesting to see what happens and it certainly would reflect the political views of the country as a whole better than anything we have now.
What I mean to imply is that since secession is illegal, then there will be consequences... and a jail term for the instigators is among the least of them. If such an endeavor is to be successful, the cost will be measured in human lives.
If a state *could* legally secede from the union, then no such consequences would apply... which is why the fact that it's illegal does have some real impact on whether it is a notion worth pursuing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
When aren't the Italians talking about revolution? The south of Europe isn't having problems because of the European Union, they're having economic issues for the same reason most of the US is; the New York banksters.
Most of Europe has abandoned local currencies for the Euro, which is pretty much an irreversible process. Many of their economies could not have survived the last decade if their currencies had still been susceptible to the predation of currency speculators like George Soros and the slime at Bank of America and CitiCorp. Think Portugal and Spain have problems now? Imagine what it would have been like if this were two decades ago, when Soros took advantage of a weak British position to crash the British pound and destroy the country's economy. The Euro is probably the only thing that saved most of the weaker European countries from further economic attack and total collapse, and their leaders are quite aware of that.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
"Just make California secede from the rest of the US.
Problem solved. "
Hah, California leaves the USA your entire economy fucking collapses.
It seems that you idiots forget that us Californians have an economy ranked between 8-10th IN THE WORLD (poised on 8th right now.) Our state alone, which happens to be the 12th largest global economy, would leave you all in another full-blown depression.
No wonder the rest of the USA would be fucked, with idiots like you populating it.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The ragged clothing and dirty faces really bring me down.
You, and everyone else bitching about the makeup of the US Congress and specifically the senate, need to go back and retake middle school civics.
The Senate, at the country's inception, WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE POPULARLY ELECTED.
You have a bicameral legislature - the House of Representatives, who's members are popularly elected by the residents of the states, and the Senate - who's membership was, until the horrific fuck up that is the 17th Amendment was passed shortly after the turn of the 20th century, selected by the legislatures of the states to represent their interests in crafting national law - and SPECIFICALLY to prevent large states, like California, New York, Florida, and Texas today; New York and Pennsylvania in 1789, from running roughshod over the interests and needs of the smaller states. So yes, the Senate makeup IS DELIBERATELY set up to fuck over the large population states, because they are able to fuck over the small states in the House of Representatives.
Welcome to basic civics.
If you want to fix the Senate, repeal the 17th.
While we're at it Oregon and Washington should be split into two states on either side of the Cascade Mountains. Most eastsiders would be happy with that as currently they're pretty powerless against the large urban areas of Portland and Seattle.
Yes, that is its political effect, and it is extremely anti-democratic. But the reason it exists is simply that independent states varied in size at the time of the Constitutional convention. There was no intention at that Convention to give rural people a political check over those living in cities.
Except YOU ARE WRONG.
That was almost precisely the intention of the proponents of the New Jersey Plan prior to its combination, in modified form, with the Virginia Plan, also modified, to form the Great Compromise. The entire point of the Senate was to provide a check against large population state representation, and force the rest of the Congress to actually listen to the needs of the smaller states.
You're right that the Constitution requires Congress to give consent to split a state. In fact, they've already done so.
In the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States that Congress passed March 1, 1845, the text includes the following:
So Congress has already given such permission to Texas, allowing Texas the option to split up anytime it wants.
Thus, I'm not sure about the GP characterization as "unlikely". Congress has done it before.
If you want population-proportional representation in the HoR, get their dumb asses to unlock the 435 limit and set it per-X-residents with no fixed number of representatives (only the ability to change "X" in that calculation when every state has a minimum population value for X). Currently, 1 representative per 700k residents is just about right (300M / 700k = 428-ish). Alaska has just above 700k residents, and North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming have a bit less, but could have 1 representative each anyway.
Agree in principle, but your representative counts are way, way off. The 435 limit was set in 1911 for the 63rd Congress, and followed that up in 1929 with the "Permanent Apportionment Act", because they couldn't get their shit together and fulfill one of their obligations (which was to properly re-apportion, including ADDING OR SUBTRACTING seats based on the census results). Kinda like today - you had members of Congress playing the anti-immigrant card as hard as they could, and in the process, really broke things for us a hundred years later.
Anyway, the US population after the 1910 census was a bit over 92 million (92,228,496) giving a population to representative of ~212k. If we were to maintain even a remotely similar representation, we would be looking at a HoR with ~1456 members, with the least populous state (Wyoming) having 2 representatives - which is, interestingly enough, directly in line with Madison's original Bill of Rights proposal for Article the First, which explicitly set the minimum number of reps per state at 2 after crossing the 30k per rep line, and setting 30k per rep as the hard line for the number of representatives in the HoR (which would have today's HoR be 10,300 and change)
Hell - I'd be okay with setting the reps per population to, on average, be roughly equivalent to smallest state population divided by 2, until such time as that's back up to, say, 350k, after which it becomes divisible by +1. That would mean that, should Wyoming's population reach 700k, we would, instead of dividing their population by 2 to get the population per rep (and the total number of reps from there). This would allow for the HoR to increase in membership still relatively infrequently, but unlikely to stay static for a century as it has, largely due to incompetence.
Southern CA depends on the Colorado River for its water, and all of CA depends on imported electricity. Much of the US depends on CA for food. That dependency is too strong just to sever over a few dollars.
No, I will not work for your startup
We live in a Republic, which has a number of positive, anti-democratic features. The Bill of Rights is one of the most prominent features designed to thwart some of the worst possible effects of a true democracy.
if states did not have equal representation in the Senate then states like Wyoming and Rhode Island would have no say in the Federal Government. They would then essentially have no representation in the government
Only if they didn't get any vote in the Senate. If the Senate places were distributed according to population, the smaller states would merely be part of a larger Senate district.
What makes Wyoming and Rhode Island more deserving of individual representation compared to the vastly more populous northern California, west Texas, or Long Island?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
The dream world you live in is actually the current state of the State of California. California has a bicameral legislature with a house and a senate, just like Washington D.C., but both elected by population. The result is exactly as others have pointed out--the urban areas run roughshod over the rural areas like the one I live in. The courts adjudicate the law, they don't write it, and in a state where the Constitution can be amended as easily as a whiteboard 'equal justice' is more like 'mob rule'. Why do I suspect your 'minority rights' don't include the right to own and use a gun, follow my religious conscious, or run my own business as I see fit?
It isn't an accident. The Representatives represent the people. The Senators represent the states. If you didn't have a system like this, then the Dakotas would essentially be at the Californians mercy.
The accident would be to get rid of this system.
Maybe Oregon and Washington would like to join it
Probably not. Most of what I hear about California around here (Seattle/Eastside) is not particularly flattering.
The European Parliament and the European Commission have much less power than the American federal government. We don't have the equivalent of FBI, CIA or NSA. We don't have a common army, or a federal income tax.
We were talking about "culturally homogenous" European countries, not linguistically. Languages are one indicator of cultural identity, but not the only one. The situation in France is actually particularly acrimonious, even more so than in Spain, and the French regions do not have any of the protections they have in Spain. Spain seems more troublesome than France precisely because the problem is officially recognised. In France, there is a flat-out denial of regional identities, with administrative boundaries redrawn contrary to local will (the city of Nantes, the capital of old Brittany, is no longer part of Brittany, and this is frequently protested about) and the French government refusing to ratify the European Charter of Minority Languages because "French is the language of the republic". Breton activists regularly protest by spraypainting or taking down French roadsigns (and I believe they've actually succeeded in getting some of their railway stations bilingually signed) and the Corsicans have a long history of shooting holes in the French half of bilingual roadsigns. While I was living in Corsica, the North Corsican assembly was putting through a bill to make Corsican co-official with French in the area, even though technically they had no powers to do so. It was an illegal act as an act of protest to France's treatment of regional languages.
The Saami are not analogous to the Pennsylvania Dutch. They're a minority population-wise, but they have a huge territory which leads to conflicts between the needs of the reindeer herders and the state's desire to open up mineral explorations in the area.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Actually, it'd probably make more sense if the far eastern parts of those states merged with Idaho instead. Check out the 38 State map for reference. It also adds western Montana and a piece of Wyoming to Idaho, but then chops off the southeast corner and gives that to Mormon-land, since that corner of Idaho has a strong Mormon presence.
It'd probably make a lot more sense for California to join with a bunch of the neighboring states of the western US and make their own country, rather than CA trying to be an independent country all by itself. CA (and the rest of the western US) doesn't need the east coast states.
As for food, the US already depends a lot on Mexico for its food, and that's a foreign country (it also gets a lot of food from even farther south). Being separate countries doesn't mean there wouldn't be trade between them. The eastern side of the country (which includes the midwest) certainly grows a lot of its own food too. I don't know what the relative numbers are, but I imagine there's a lot of movement of food back and forth because some things grow better in some places than others, and during different seasons. California probably doesn't grow many apples or corn for instance, while New York probably doesn't grow many melons or oranges.
We tried that back in the late 1700s, and it didn't work. That's why we have the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't allow things to be left to the states; you'd need to get rid of the Bill of Rights to do that. If you're going to define the BoR as being individual rights (free speech, freedom of religion, etc.) which the States can't legislate against, then you have to also accept that issues like abortion are going to be decided at the Federal level as well.
It sounds like France needs to be broken apart as well then.
How about Germany? You don't hear too much about conflicts within Germany.
If the Euros could make the EU work (perhaps with some major tweaks), it'd be better all around if various countries broke apart so that ethnic groups like the Basques and Corsicans can have their own small country and autonomy, while still enjoying the economic benefits of being part of a larger trade union.
How about Germany? You don't hear too much about conflicts within Germany.
Ahh... Germany... The reason Germany works is because it's a federal republic, where the regions can negotiate with each other and can push back against the central government. A very similar system to the US system that mtrachtenberg was decrying as "undemocratic".
If the Euros could make the EU work (perhaps with some major tweaks), it'd be better all around if various countries broke apart so that ethnic groups like the Basques and Corsicans can have their own small country and autonomy, while still enjoying the economic benefits of being part of a larger trade union.
"A Europe of the regions" as it is described. Sadly, the national governments don't want it, so the EU doesn't want it.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
The Propellerheads had this idea years ago. [end of obscure musical reference]
Not hard to split up the debt. take the total revenues/taxes for each district last year, figure out the % it is of the total. Now use that percentage on how to break up the states debt.
I know that Northern Cali/Jefferson will get screwed, but it they want freedom, they should take the deal. It will prove to be a bargain, The rest of the state is not slowing down in ow fast they are spending money. The sooner they split, the less new massive debt that is not fair for them to take, that they will have to deal with.
vi +
Imagine what it would have been like if this were two decades ago, when Soros took advantage of a weak British position to crash the British pound and destroy the country's economy.
They'd probably be in better shape economically, for one thing. Inflation is a built in "austerity" corrector to bad economic policies. Things would have been correcting for the past couple of decades, whether by the speculation of "New York bankers" or not, rather than crammed into a few years after a really bad recession.
One merely needs to look at the rest of the world with their many currencies which aren't dependent on the Euro to see that this drama is not as severe as you claim.
And at least in the EU, they're only mostly trying to make an economic union, rather than making broad laws that affect everyone (such as laws governing social issues).
First, economic laws are usually "broad laws" in their own right - they tend to affect a lot of people even when the those people aren't participating directly in the affected market. Second, there are many social issues affected - labor, entitlements, environmental issues, etc.
I seriously doubt there's any serious disagreement in Iceland over any issues the way we have here in America.
Ok, so why do you think that? I seem to recall that there was a huge hubbub in Iceland over their banks back when the real estate crisis hit.
Put all of the tax and spend liberals together with the Hollywood airheads. Allow the rest of the state political representation, which they presently do not have.
If the Euros could make the EU work
This is fundamentally infeasible. The reason it is ok for a country to have common currency all over is that they largely represent an "economy", economically. Economic culture is likely similar, economic decisions by the "government" are identical etc. So a country with "better" economy, in the sense that other countries want to do a lot of business with it, leads to its currency appreciating over time. Now imports are easier, and exports are harder. This gives the countries with worse economies a better chance (incentive) to be able to export more, and import less. A stable equilibrium, if you will.
With a common currency, but different economic decisions and greatly different economic culture, this equilibrium is not stable any more. No one wants to do business with Portugal (say), but that doesn't give it the benefit of a depreciating currency to encourage exports because people would kill to do business with Germany which uses the same currency. So the Portuguese economy does not "improve", and STILL no one wants to do business with Portugal.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
So what's the answer then? Having dozens of different currencies in one region causes huge problems because of the cost of currency exchange, which is why the Euro was devised in the first place. There's been a lot of benefit to so many countries sharing a common currency. Yes, they could just unite into a single country with a single monetary policy, but considering how different their cultures all are, that's likely to result in a ridiculous amount of squabbling and infighting.
What's the answer? Lower cost of currency exchange, limited unofficial acceptance of a few different currencies by businessmen, cooperation between countries to catch counterfeiting in other countries too.
Cost of currency exchange is not fundamentally high, but common currency is fundamentally infeasible.
Problems being there doesn't mean non-solutions(long term) should be adopted, especially ones difficult to undo.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Yeah but in Texas they have Jesus. So there.
Draper's idea is not only somewhat selfish and very conventional, its a way of reductionist thinking that compounds the original error... Its re-hash of stupidity we are suffering from everyday as a result of having drawn dotted lines on maps where no dotted lines should be. All the challenges of the 21st Century, the Anthropocene Era, do not care about dotted lines on maps. If Draper were really smart, he would investigate business opportunities to make the lines irrelevant. I have two such opportunities for him or any other VC that cares to change America for the better - but it will take some patient capital. Tim: If you do want to make a positive impact, there are much better ways than compounding old errors, but I understand your frustration. Its time, in many ways, to get outside the box - do something positive. Let me know.
The biggest collection of idiots is the collection of idiots dancing between your ears.
Until the Corps of Engineers shuts off the water at least. Not that we would do that since there's a lot of valuable crops grown in CA but don't sit and say that you can live without the rest of the country.
California's reliance on Arizona has more to do with the water it needs than the power it needs.
Power can be upgraded, if it really had to. It doesn't because.. at the moment it can get away without doing it.