Slashdot Mirror
'New California' Movement Wants To Create a 51st State (wqad.com)
PolygamousRanchKid, Ayano, and an anonymous reader all shared the same story. Tribune Media reports:
A group has launched a campaign to divide California into two states. It isn't the first attempt to split California, but unlike a failed campaign in 2016 to divide California into six states, the campaign to create New California would split the state into one made up of rural counties and another made up of coastal counties.
USA Today provides some context: Breaking up California remains no easy task: A formal secession means getting approval from both Congress and California's legislature itself. But that hasn't stopped folks from trying. Hundreds of times... Monday's declaration of "the State of New California" marked the latest in more than 200 long-shot efforts to split the Golden State. All so far have failed.
USA Today provides some context: Breaking up California remains no easy task: A formal secession means getting approval from both Congress and California's legislature itself. But that hasn't stopped folks from trying. Hundreds of times... Monday's declaration of "the State of New California" marked the latest in more than 200 long-shot efforts to split the Golden State. All so far have failed.
Splitting California's electoral votes is a right wing wet dream. Makes you wonder if it's the Koch family or the Mercers behind this push. Or some combination of billionaires and Russian foreign intelligence.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
All of these split-state movements make no sense as long as we're keeping Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands in territory hell. If anyone deserves statehood, it's these places, not some disgruntled counties in a long-established state.
That state has the most electoral votes and it is always a democratic state. If they split it into 6, they could probably get 2 of those new states to be republican states.
What horse crap. Can we do that with Florida too?
More like from a "goofy secessionism dept"
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Don't name it "New California," keep the name "California" and make the SF+LA part take the name "Commifornia."
Better idea: Split the US in two countries. The Red States and the Blue States. And build a wall between the two.
It is obvious that conservatives and liberals have two fundamentaly different and irreconcilable ways of seeing the world, two completely different and opposite cultures, and that their union will never be anything else but a neverending compromise between the two that satisfies noone and only breeds frustration, anger and hatred. The civil war never really ended, people just stopped killing each other. The US is simply living under a century old cease fire.
Let the two countries in one part their own ways amicably. This way the red states will be able to continue electing their beloved Donald Trumps and the blue states their Harvey Weinsteins, and everyone will be happy.
Electoral votes are the same as the number of representatives in the house. Since most of the power in that area lies in the urban areas that they want to split from, I would expect the electoral shakedown to stay about the same. Urban California would lose some electoral votes to rural California I doubt it would be enough to change the college vote that much.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Electoral votes are the sum of the state's congressional delegation. So Reps + Senators. Which is why all states have at least 3 at minimum (1 guaranteed Rep, 2 Senators).
If we're going to do this then maybe we should trim the liberal parts of Texas off to create another state as well to keep things even. Otherwise a plan like this is just tilting the federal government to the Right.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
A state consisting of rural California only would be one of, if not the poorest state in the nation.
The video shows the area around San Jose as part of the New California, which is, I assume an attempt to gerrymander a new state in which San Jose pays the bills, while the rest of the state sets the policies.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Is there any actual evidence of support outside the major urban centers in California? Up here in Canada there are no lack of "Western Separatist" movements that dream secession from Canada, because you know, all them Libruls and such. Even in the most right wing provinces; Alberta and Saskatchewan, these are just a small band of kooks who every once in a while somehow manage to get a bit of press. Even Quebec secessionism is pretty much on the back foot, and while I'd never say it's dead, it's pretty clear the Quebecois, who have a helluva better case than a bunch of cranky reactionary arch-conservative wingnuts, seem to have moved on from the whole sovereign Quebec issue.
So, unless there's some new data showing widespread support for this, it's just another pack of cranks, the number of which could probably gather in the nearest Burger King with room to spare, plotting that which shall never be achieved.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Paul Preston and Tom Reed are two cranks who have been at this game since the early 90s. If you go to their "movement's" website you will find that their various "regional committees" are almost completely made up of Paul Preston and Tom Reed. Their previous efforts consisted entirely of raising money.
The funny part of this story is that Russian bots were pushing the story on Twitter and Facebook that this "New California" officially seceded from the rest of the state. Scamsters selling swag quickly got in on the fun:
https://twitter.com/GrantJKidn...
State secession has long been a favorite trope of the Russian bots. I'm sure you remember this story about how they pushed for Texas to secede. Turns out their Facebook page was run by the "Internet Research Agency" run out of St Petersburg, Russia.
https://extranewsfeed.com/how-...
https://washingtonmonthly.com/...
No collusion...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Think of all the 1-star patches that would have to be sent out to update all the US flags and all the problems that would cause. Many companies can't even apply OS patches and most people can't even patch drywall w/o problems. Flags will be messed up for *years*. They probably won't all get patched exactly the same way, and improperly patched flags would look funny and could even fly all wrong. As a sysadmin, and someone who sometime sews, I'm against this.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Not really. California has had movements to split it into multiple states periodically as far back as I can remember. The supreme court decision that the state senate had to district on the basis of population rather than geography didn't do anything to reduce them, though.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I never had any interest in it. I could see Puerto Rico as a state but certainly not DC.
If you dig into the details of the current California budget and look at the cash flows for roads, schools, medical care, and a couple of other things, what you find is a huge amount of money transferred from the coastal areas that would be in one new state to the rural areas that would be in the other. This is not unusual; it happens in a lot of states. (I used to do that kind of study professionally.)
Split the way it's drawn, the rural need for subsidies would remain largely unchanged, but the burden to provide the money would fall solely on the few cities (San Jose, San Diego) and their suburbs that got stuck in the rural state. Given a choice after they see a draft budget, San Jose and San Diego are going to scream about being included in the rural state.
In 1819 the Massachusetts legislature voted to enable Maine to become an independent state. However is this would have changed the balance in the Senate between slave and free states, Congress wouldn't admit Maine without admitting an additional slave state, which is what you probably learned in school was called the "Missouri Compromise".
However ... since Republicans currently control Congress, a different limitation comes into play, From Article IV Section 3 Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Since California is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, it's highly unlikely that the legislature will consent to increasing Republican power in the US Senate.
TL;DR: It can be done, but it won't happen unless another, Democratic-leaning state is admitted (e.g. Puerto Rico).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
No.
The citizens voted to join into the state, they are as bound to it as the states are to the union.
the Civil War settled that unilateral withdrawal is grounds for war.
Ripper: Mandrake?
Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have, Jack.
Ripper: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this Earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that 70 percent of you is water?
Mandrake: Good Lord!
Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?
Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
Mandrake: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?
(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
The US Civil War is an excellent example of why secession should be allowed. What a cock up that was. Do remember, for example, that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, that his famous proclamation only proclaimed Confederate slaves free (even though there definitely were Union slaves), etc..
Today, it's places like Catalonia and Scotland. Why should Spain have a say, if Catalonia doesn't want to be Spanish any longer?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The second right-wing billionaire plan in three months to gerrymander the entire state of California. But who can blame the right? Gerrymandering is the one thing they know, and can do well. Cracking and packing is a right-wing way of life.
Last time it was an attempt to create two new right-wing states. Both schemes use the same strategy of packing the majority of the population of California into one nearly completely blue state, creating one (or two) slightly red majority states, but with a wealthy deep blue urban center captured at its edge like a hostage to pay the bills.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Habeas corpus was suspended(or rather didn't exist) for 4 million black southerns through the institution of slavery.
A clarification I'd like to make is that Lincoln's primary goal was reunification of the Union, by any means necessary. That includes: a war with the South, as well as emancipation of some slaves, all slaves or none of them. Clearly from Lincoln's own statements and letters, human rights was not something Lincoln was looking to solve on his own. It wasn't even the primary thought on his mind.
The saner thing would have been to dissolve slavery after much discourse and peaceful persuasion and acceptance on all sides. But the political climate of 19th century America has too many factions that dug themselves into a position they could not extricate themselves from without being disowned by their own faction.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The rural half should keep Sacramento too. We'd have a rich half and a half that was like Nevada but with a significant agriculture industry (about 12% of the US's ag revenue). I'd be curious to see if the coast would still be so rich if not supported by the top agricultural state in the nation. (California is #1 at $46B, Iowa is #2 at $26B)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
By nature, San Fernando valley is a desert. It has been turned into a productive agricultural area by:
1) taping into underground aquifers (which are running dry)
and
2) taping into water supplies from northern California, and from other states.
If CA became it's own country, or if northern CA split from southern CA, the agreements that allow all of this water to San Fernando, might have to be renegotiated. And it is doubtful that S. CA would get the favourable terms they got a century ago.
San Fernando could find itself desperately short of water - sooner rather than later.
"While we have far more protections for small voter blocks" I would argue with the electoral college, that you went a step too far, and that at least for the current set up of presidential election, you have a tyranny of the minority. In most place of the world where a president is decided by election , 1 person is 1 vote. But with your electoral college, this is not true and small state people count for more than big state. In fact I can't think of any other democracy where that happens. The result is actually that the minority can decide election against popular vote. And that's royally screwed from a democratic point of view IMO.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
During the civil war West Virginia was removed from Virginia and made a separate state. The Constitution didn't matter. Lincoln could either save constitutional government or the union and he choose to save the union. Technically, the suspension of civil rights during the civil war was based on marshall law during an insurrection. That has never been revoked.
Having said "the southern states are still in the union" the federal government was faced with a problem. The 1866 election, based on the 1864 election results, with the southern states now voting, would have led to a Democratic victory. That would have overturned the verdict of the bloodiest war in our nation's history. The Republicans, understandably were not going to let that happen. Thus what we usually call "reconstruction" which was only ended when the 1980 census limited the likelyhood of a Democratic victory. The north with the aid of huge immigrant flows, had now won the war, and got to write the history books.
In any case, West Virginia was removed from Virginia without the concurrence of the state of Virginia in direct violation of the constitution but the post civil war era was also the post constitutional era.
That's what the House is for. The Senate, with every state regardless of all other factors getting two votes, is meant as a check against a tyrannical majority. It'd be nice to see the House get back to 1 representative per 30,000 citizens. That way we'd have 10,000+ congress critters in the house, and corporations would have to spend a lot more money to buy their votes.