Slashdot Mirror
Investor Tim Draper Pushes Ballot Measure Splitting California Into 3 States (sfgate.com)
"One of several proposals aiming to split California into multiple smaller states has reportedly reached an important new goal thanks in large part to the efforts of its billionaire champion," writes schwit1. SFGate reports:
Venture capitalist Tim Draper, who previously pushed a proposal that would split California into six states, says that his three-state proposal has enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot. On Thursday, Draper said in a statement that the "CAL 3" initiative has collected over 600,000 signatures from Californians who would like to see the state split into three. An initiative needs 366,000 signatures to appear on the ballot. "This is an unprecedented show of support on behalf of every corner of California to create three state governments that emphasize representation, responsiveness, reliability and regional identity," Draper said.
The U.S. Congress would still need to approve the change -- and it's probably useful to remember what happened when Draper tried splitting California into six states. He ultimately turned in 1.3 million signatures for a ballot measure in 2014, "only to see nearly half of them disqualified.
"He ended up about 100,000 short of the valid signatures he needed."
The U.S. Congress would still need to approve the change -- and it's probably useful to remember what happened when Draper tried splitting California into six states. He ultimately turned in 1.3 million signatures for a ballot measure in 2014, "only to see nearly half of them disqualified.
"He ended up about 100,000 short of the valid signatures he needed."
It has always seemed weird to me that California has the same number of senators in Washington as North Dakota and Vermont.
By inclusion of San Francisco in Northern California, and Bakersfield and San Diego in Southern California, Draper has crafted 3 liberal controlled entities. This does nothing to represent local interests of the northern and eastern Californians. And indeed it attempts to create 4 more Democratic votes in the Senate, and does nothing to the House split. More logical would be San Francisco to San Diego and east inclusive of Bakersfield for California. That leaves East California and North California more representative of their population.
Surely he represents the average californian
From tfa
"The reasoning behind the proposal is that California has gotten too big to be governed effectively"
Nonsense, the reason for this is to break up the largest Blue state to conservative's advantage.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
it's probably useful to remember what happened when Draper tried splitting California into six states. He ultimately turned in 1.3 million signatures for a ballot measure in 2014, "only to see nearly half of them disqualified.
Ballot attempts are poisoned by those who oppose them who deliberately turn in fraudulent signatures. So you overshoot to try to compensate.
50%, though. That is one mighty effort. I have to assume it was by people who don't want a net gain of 2 senators for the Republicans as the population gets more accurate and plentiful representation.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I don't see how this would benefit anyone other than California... so the state is in trouble because no other state is going along with them...so instead of implementing some constraint when they make up new "laws" let's impose our will on others and take them down as well.
Your say in government is in inverse proportion to the number of people just like you. But that relationship is not linear in 1/n. Calif has nearly 40M people. Cutting down your competition to 10M will do little. Still at that number, only corporations, billionaires, and large special interest groups have a say. The only advantage is that birds of a feather might be able to flock together.
From tfa
"The reasoning behind the proposal is that California has gotten too big to be governed effectively"
Nonsense, the reason for this is to break up the largest Blue state to conservative's advantage.
See, one part of the state wants a conservative Capitalist Christian society where life begins at the thought of conception. Money is worshipped above all else - even trumping Christian values - and the Free Market is the ultimate perfection.
The other side wants a socialist LGBTQ society where heterosexuality is banned, obortions are mandatory and all guns are melted down and turned into peace symbols. And religion can only be the new age Depak Chopra type of stuff where the Quantum state of imagination is worshipped.
And in either case, the billionaires always get their way.
I do not oppose the idea of splitting CA into 3 or even 6 states because that would mean more senators. With a majority in the senate we could get more of our federal tax dollars back to pay for badly needed infrastructure projects (that of course assumes they would work together).
I disagree with these specific divisions though. The man funding this want to make silicon valley its own state. I would prefer to make any new divisions horizontal instead of cutting out a small area and calling it state.
Of course all of this is mute because congress will not let CA split. We already voted to split once and congress said "NO".
Tim doesn't understand the long-term implications of this.
It has always seemed weird to me that California has the same number of senators in Washington as North Dakota and Vermont.
Short version: Works as intended. Small states supposed to have disproportionate power. Forces more compromise.
... and in those days there was probably a large degree of truth to it. Today the Senate is a bit closer in composition to the House due to direct election so we have lost some of those benefits. However the protection of the small states still persists.
Long version:
The organization of the US government is heavily influenced by the concept of checks and balances, forced compromise. Power spread among the three branches of government, executive, legislature, judicial. Power spread among the interests of the people and the interests of the states. Power spread among the slowly changing and the rapidly changing. Power spread among the large and the small states.
The Senate was designed to represent the state governments themselves and to be slowly changing (6 year terms rather than 2). Originally the senators were selected by the state governments. In 1913 things were changed so that Senators were directly elected by the people.
The Senate was also designed specifically so that the large states could not dominate the small states, effectively making them vassals. This was an essential compromise that allowed the formation of the country in the first place. The small states would not have otherwise voted for the constitution if they did not have some sort of protection. The Senate is their protection, their balance, their tool of compromise.
Keep in mind that the founding fathers not only feared powerful central governments, they also feared the poorly educated and overly emotional mob. They were worried the legislature could be dominated by the mob if purely directly elected. The Senate being selected by the state governments was intended to balance the influence of the mob with the influence of the better educated, the latter being more characteristic of those in the state governments compared to the average citizen.
Well, that was the theory
So the allocation of counties represents political senatorial gerrymandering.
Because if nearly half of the 1.3 million signatures collected last time were disqualified and he was still short 100,000 signatures, that would mean that it requires at *LEAST* 750,000 signatures.
The article says over 600,000.... assuming that means between 600,000 and 700,000, that's not going to be enough.
Why were half the signatures from the last one disqualified anyways? What was wrong with them?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
From tfa
"The reasoning behind the proposal is that California has gotten too big to be governed effectively"
Nonsense, the reason for this is to break up the largest Blue state to conservative's advantage.
Then why are the 3 subdivisions blue in nature? Its about increasing the proportion of blue in the Senate.
California lacks effective government because it is effectively a one party state, the legislature control by a (super)majority of very liberal democrats. There is no checks and balances of whatever dumbass idea they come up with. There is no forced compromise to moderate the stupidity. Until there is a political balance that forces more moderation and more compromise California will remain ungovernable, as will the 3 democrat controller subdivisions. We'll just have 3 dumbass legislatures that largely agree on things rather than the current. Little to no improvement.
Small states supposed to have disproportionate power.
So some people are more equal than others. Seems fair.
Try reading past the first line. It does wonders for insight, give it a try.
I for one welcome our new I.T. closet cleaner overlord.
what would all the red states do without California's money pouring into their states as extracted federal taxes?
Thank God for the 17th Amendment, or this would be the United States of New York and California.
The 17th Amendment weakened the protections that the Senate was supposed to provide.
Originally the 2 Senators were selected by the state legislatures. So we had the protection of the small states from day 1, this compromise was necessary to get the constitution ratified in the first place, to get a strong central government in the first place.
However by the 17th's allowing the popular election of the Senate we moved one step closer to the "mob rule" the founding father feared, we lost one of those checks and balances, lost a voice that was supposed to represent state interests.
Try reading past the first line. It does wonders for insight, give it a try.
Yes, it's all reinforcing the concept that the opinion of a person in a small state is more valuable than that of an individual in a large state.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Breaking up a state into three parts isnâ(TM)t the solution for too much alleged hegemony in state government. Actually campaigning for a non-blue party or pressuring the already existing party is what normal people do.
Too many yes people salivating around everything this billionaire thinks to the point that he doesnâ(TM)t realize that if he werenâ(TM)t a billionaire people would dismiss him as a moron. This is the type of notion youâ(TM)d expect from someone living in trailer park proud of their grade ten certificate.
You mean the money for military bases, Indian reservations, bloated government healthcare, and inefficient educational systems? I'd say they thrive.
Receiving federal funds isn't a benefit, it's a liabilitiy.
As California's population grows and it gains more and more representatives in Congress, attempts to break up the state will only increase. No single state should be able to determine how the rest of the country runs.
The Red States would get Trump to give them another round of tax cuts. Then it will all magically go away and those stated will be in the land of milk and honey (sic).
So in your thinking, majority rules and might makes right? If 51% vote to pillage and kill the other 49%, that's acceptable? Ancient Athens in the Peloponnesian War demonstrated many of the intrinsic flaws of pure democracy. And just ask Socrates, who was murdered by majority vote.
Perhaps democracy isn't such a great idea for protecting human rights.
There have been movements in NY to separate NYC from the rest of upstate NY.
Like California, there is a small, densely populated area and a huge sparsely populated area (by comparison).
The larger, less populated areas don't have the same needs and wants as the big city. Often times, whatever the big city wants to do, the rest of the state gets dragged along for the ride (just because it's the big gorilla in the room), much to the detriment of the rest of the state.
It's completely unbalanced.
A big city can bring in big money, but most of that money usually stays in or near the city and doesn't really help the rest of the state. The big city also tends to drain a lot of resources from the rest of the state, which folks don't like either.
A lot of times, yes, there are big differences in political ideology between the big city and the rest of the state. So why shouldn't the state be separated to keep the two areas happy, instead of being at odds all the time? Let the city do what's good for the city, and let the rest of the state do what's good for them.
Your not getting it. There are two houses, Congress where small states are insignificant and the senate where they are equal. Since passage of bills requires going through both houses, it creates a check and balance both where large states still dominate but where smaller states still some say. The system works extremely well.
Sadly the politicians on both sides and even the independents are letting us down. The slanted and fake news keeps growing and more and more we see is just intolerance of other views on all sides. No political system will thrive in that environment.
For starters, a disclaimer: I'm a foreigner to the US.
But I couldn't help to wonder whether there is a column also for those who want to sign up for California not being split.
Otherwise, it's gonna be another "Brexit" with lots of people scratching their heads and asking "whaaat?!?"
Solid thinking, there, Robespierre. Just see what happens when the guillotine comes out.
parts of the central valleys (ie everything between the coast range and sierras) and then depending on political leaning, the coast regions of SF, LA, and San Diego into a third state. It might be worth adjusting these borders slightly to make it into ultraliberal and ultraconservative states, since what many people are ignoring is that doing so would finally provide the put up vs shut up test case for each sides claims of superiority over the other. It might furthermore lead to one or more of these states purging a major party and starting their own, as representation of their values might now fall LEFT or RIGHT of the Democrat or Republican party who makes up the majority of their state, thus convincing people it is time to form a party that better represents their interests. Of course that might not happen and it will still be a bunch of whiney bitchass Democrats and Republicans fapping to the thought of pulling one over on the other guy, but at that point maybe somebody will come along and finally purge the sickness from American's political and social system.
You seem to be misunderstanding the dynamics of CA lawmaking. The disfunction stems from populist approach of direct democracy, not from the single party. The partisan politics is simply shifted to be between the progressives and the liberals, rather than the Democrats and Republicans. The checks and balances are still there. But they can't make up for a system in which voters can decide to both increase government services and not pay for them.
Draper is an extreme leftist and is obviously doing this to shift control of the Senate to Democrats, NOT Republicans. The proposal to split California in two: the coastal west (which is Democratic) and the rural east (which is Republican) actually IS a sensible plan, but that's not what Draper is doing.
he just wants to get the electoral votes of the right wing parts of California so he can push an agenda of low taxes, fewer social services and fewer worker protections. As an added bonus California's strong consumer protection laws benefit us all since they're too large a market to ignore, but this would split that market up into manageable chunks diluting their effect.
California & New York are more or less the last bastions of civilization in the USA. They're the one place that was more or less untouched by Tea Party style trickle down low or no regulation politics. This would suck for the entire United States (including rural California) except for the billionaire class.
Bottom line, we don't need to break up because we have nothing in common. 99% of us are members of the working class. That more than anything is what binds us, makes a whole. And it's also why guys like this want to split us up.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No... it says those two states are equals in the Senate. In the House of Representatives the bigger state can throw its weight around. In the Senate they are equals.
A surplus? That's quite the joke. California's balance sheet is holding hundreds of billions in unfunded liabilities (debt), much of it from the public pension system. Meanwhile, millionaires are fleeing in record numbers, so it's core tax base is dwindling. At the current pace, it is mathematically impossible that California will meet its massive debt obligations; a catastrophic default is inevitable.
that forces a state to split up when it constitutes some % of the US population vs the combined rest of the states.
It's ridiculous that 5 states in total have 1/3 of the population. We're a republic of states not a giant monolithic slab.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Not sure what that would mean for smaller states. And I'm sure this is probably flame bait
States aren't people, they should have no say. The only thing that matters is the citizenry.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
1. Northern CA (San Francisco, etc.)
2. Southern CA
3. MexiCA, to reduce the illegals crossing the border What wall? We're already Americans, si?
Hollywood can go build a replica of the White House, and choose a new actor to play president; they've had practice.
California weighs disproportionately in the House, as well as elections.
Because the Founders did foresee the evolution of this, they saw it when they were drafting the Constitution, that's why they did this. This is literally basic history on the founding of the United States.
The creation of Checks & Balances and the 3 branches of the Federal Government, to keep any one branch from gaining absolute power.
The splitting of the Legislative branch so there is a section where all states wield equal power, and another where each state is represented based on population. Because both of these are important, not merely one or the other. One is the States being equal participants and having their voice heard, the other is the voice of the people and supposed to be so we still have access to our own government.
The mess our government is in, beholden to Merchants rather than The People or the States, is what was not foreseen or intended. And even that was foreseen, as we used to have laws limiting the influence of Money on our Government, until poor decision-making suddenly gave them free reign to destroy our country in the name of profits.
You are an idiot who can not comprehend basic civics.
China kills more prisoners than any other country. China incarcerates more people for political and spiritual belief than any other country.
Fuck you chink. Go hang.
360k sounds pretty low for a state with nearly 40 million people, and allows nonsense like this to get on the ballot.
this guy's goal is to break up and gerrymander california to steer the massive electoral college votes (essentially creates 3 ohios out of 1 california) and now 6 senate seats to the right. it has got absolutely nothing to do with the 'size' of california and it being 'too big' to govern itself.
Bullshit.
Plenty of revolutions have ended in peaceful democratic coexistence.
Your made-in-Texas schoolbook education is showing.
> go build a replica of the White House
Esta la Casa Blanca
I'm shocked, shocked!
..we could use some more around here you hatefilled kuk.
He want's to split Caliornia up and what will happen is we'll vote ourselves out of the fucking union, telling Trump and the other shits in Washington to go to hell. There was something on the Local News (ABC/CBS/NBC) about the state congress actually looking at the possibility of revocking the Asscendency of the United States Constitution in favor of California's Constittion. By doing so, California would Leave the Union and keep all of the money sent to the Feds (They only get 70 percent back) in all of the taxes. They're also the only fucking state that can afford to do so since California's GDP is in the top 10 world GDP's and without being part of the United States, it would be in the top 5 GDP
You had slavery, sure it ended after a while but after how many decades ? And even after African American were not really equal, segregation ended after how many decades tell me ? It would in theory be good at avoiding mob rules and tyranny. In practice it is horrible at avoiding the majority oppressing the minorities, in fact even today some minorities are still repressed, e.g. LGBT. Again, the form of government you have repeatedly fail over and over to protect minorities or hated population groups. At which point will you admit that the sole effect now is not protecting minorities, but keeping the status effing quo ?
Yeah, no. Fuck off.
I don't want France deciding what we do in my country anymore than California should be deciding what goes on in Florida.
Just look at a homeowners association. It doesn't matter how many people live in a house. Everyone gets a vote based on the percentage of land they own. It wouldn't make sense to give everyone equal votes.
Such as...
If the splits were along lines of latitude, it might be worth considering. But the proposed map is obviously along lines to increase or reduce influence of certain groups.
Short version: a bunch of weird rationalizations why some people should have votes that count more than other votes.
For state issues, everybody in the state should have a vote of equal weight. For federal issues, everybody in the country should have a vote of equal weight. Making Wyoming votes count 3.6 times what a vote in California gets is bullshit derived from historical accidents. There's no good reason for it and the status quo should change.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Riiiight.... they just all do it because they love liabilities.
US citizens stream out of these states...
Well, these are the lies the right-wing ACs tell themselves to feel good inside.
Here is a question for you. In the 50 states, where do you think California ranks in terms of the fraction of its citizen population who leave each year?
Number one? Number five? Number ten?
It is number forty nine. Only one state has a population less likely to leave. The OC Register is a famously right-wing paper by the way.
And those leaving the state are not the "rich people fleeing" that exist in the fantasies of the right, but are people whose incomes are by and large below the state average - the less successful.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
California is running a budget surplus ...
Temporary, and having more to do with the national economy than anything done in California.
... and has the most successful economy in the country.
Irrelevent, the legislature/governor have little to nothing to do with that.
If you're so concerned over the effectiveness of state governments maybe you should try generally voting for Democrats.
You suffer from a reading comprehension problem don't you, is it politically inspired? One party control is the problem. One ideological extreme getting all they want is the problem. You don't want either part in supermajority control. You want balance, you want them to have to compromise, that moderates the stupidity.
Furthermore, you don't seem to know how California divides politically. "Southern California" would most certainly be red.
You are amazingly ignorant of the facts. Examine the blueness on the county results map.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sorry, the rationalization seems to be on your side. You can't get what you want *all* the time so the world is so unfair. In most areas proportionality dominates, there are merely a couple of checks/balances where it does not. This forces compromise which moderates change and often leads to better results.
Some federal issues have massive impact on individual states.
Small states only get equal representation in one part of the legislature. The other part of the legislature, the one that controls spending by the way, has proportional representation.
Try reading past the first line. It does wonders for insight, give it a try.
Yes, it's all reinforcing the concept that the opinion of a person in a small state is more valuable than that of an individual in a large state.
The people get a proportional say in the House. The states get a proportional say in the Senate. No law can be enacted without the "people's" consent via the House. This is part of the checks and balances of the system that prevent the "wolves" from voting on lunch.
"“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”
Benjamin Franklin"
The fear of such mob rule is why we are a republic rather than a pure democracy.
States aren't people, they should have no say. The only thing that matters is the citizenry.
We are a union of states, the contract that created that union gave states a say. The citizenry are actually better off this way. Moderation and compromise are mandated, this often leads to better results than letting the mob have whatever the mob want.
That the partisan fight is largely between two factions of the democratic party rather than democrats vs republicans isn't much of an argument that California is not a one party state. Its actually good evidence of this. :-)
I'm pretty sure you can name a few if there are even plenty of them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Try reading past the first line. It does wonders for insight, give it a try.
Yes, it's all reinforcing the concept that the opinion of a person in a small state is more valuable than that of an individual in a large state.
Therefore making the two states themselves equal.
The problem with so many Liberals is that they only claim to hate bullies when something's stopping them from being the bully.
States are not independent in any important sense of that phrase, and this is a good thing. The description of the US as "semi-independent" States more accurately describes the Articles of Confederation, which failed explicitly because of the lack of a strong federal government, and the ultimate question of independence was settled rather conclusively by the Civil War.
Independence here must refer to independent military capability. Government is classically defined as a local monopoly on violence, thus we must measure the independence of States by their ability to make war on each other. Currently, South Carolina is ill-prepared to attack or repel North Carolina, and this is generally considered a good thing. However, things were not always so. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States really were in most senses independent, and the federal government had no ability to compel the States to do anything in particular. This rapidly proved unworkable.
The current Constitution sought to provide a government which balanced power between the States and the federal government. However, given the definition of government, this is impossible: either the States are empowered to resist the federal government, in which case the federal government exists in name only, or the States must be subordinate to the federal government. However, we did certainly attempt to follow through on these principles, and their failure was not due to apathy or ignorance, but violence and surpassing bloodshed.
For the first twenty-odd years, we maintained very little in the way of a peacetime army, and relied on the State militias for defense. Then the British burned the Capitol, and we decided to start funding a real military[0]. It might be interesting to examine how much of the eventual ascendancy of the federal government was enabled by its greater powers of taxation, but when we began funding a standing army (and navy), we quietly laid down the principles of federal republicanism. Federal power continued to grow through the mid-19th century, culminating in the Civil War. Whatever else that represented, it was the triumph of federalism, and the ultimate abegnation of the principles of the Articles of Confederation. I'd say that you were welcome to fight another war if you happen to disagree with the way that the last one went, but to be honest we'd really you rather not.
[0] Lessons from history: amateur armies are not effective. No, the Revolutionary War is not a counterexample; our dependence on French military assistance could not be overstated.
Like here.
I particularly like the 13 state solution, which restores a senate which operates as the founders would have intended. The house, on the other hand, should go with many, many more representatives, so that you'd have a decent chance of knowing your local rep, as would have been the case in 1787. Sure, you might end up with a *huge* House, but who cares? You could debate legislation by blog, complete with uprating and downrating posts.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Simple solution. Take the state to court if they don't approve it. After all, requiring ID to vote is racist according to the Democrats, so it would follow that requiring that the signatories actually exist is some form of -ist.
It creates a single state that is full of rich and powerful (sf and silicon valley) then creates a norcal and socal state.
From the same article, CA has a negative net migration, placing it ahead of only Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Illinois and behind 45 other states in ranking. So a low percentage leave, but an even lower percentage than that move in. As per the article, "California’s population grows primarily through births and foreign immigrants."
So it's a little more complicated than you cherry picking a single stat would make out.
(Posting anon as I already moderated in this story)
Please, CA is just tied down by its USA ties at this point. Each "State" would be more populous than the entire USA in 1789, and more populous than half the sovereign countries. CA can thrive on its own, perhaps with three provinces.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
San Andreas will do all the work for you.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The only three 'branches' we need are Earth, Wind, and Fire. It's not up to me decide how a brother does without water...
I am generally for splitting up California and have believed so for 30 years. But I have since learned about what stands in it's way.
On the federal side Senators would be voting to weaken their own votes.
And probably #1 would be interstate water. Southern California depends on northern California's water. I am in Los Angeles. You hear all about droughts here which is 90% BS. The truth is California has a tremendous farming economy. Cheap water is money here and the farms are squeezing the cities. (I personally believe the big cities should be desalinating ocean water by now and just get out of that game.) And it's only become worse with all the environmental protection laws here which took away something like 30% of the water. If you split up the state your opening up the can of worms that is the all the water contracts and agreements; many of which existed before California was a state. Lawsuit city. All the money behind farming will fight this tooth and nail.
In presidential elections, the Democrat usually wins by double digit margins. That'd be some pretty tough gerrymandering to give the GOP more power. MAYBE the GOP could gain 1-2 US Senate seats if EVERYTHING went their way, but that's a real stretch.
And I don't see a billionaire throwing out $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ just to give political party hacks more power.
I am American living in California and liberal dominates of this state is ridiculus. Very sick of high tax, which is theft, and SJW poltics that hurt straight white christian males the most. Ignore the whines and naysays, just split the state up!
The system was designed to give rural voters more weight in proportion to their population. It was put in place by wealthy landowners who were worried the more populace city dwellers would eventually demand more equitable distribution of wealth. This is also why Senators weren't elected at first.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For someone who copypastes to sound smart you sure are dumb. Read about the constitutional convention. The senate versus representatives disparity was specifically designed to stop large states from strong arming small ones.
Yeah! Like in Egypt! And Libya! And Iran! And the USSR! And China! And North Korea! And The Balkans! And Zimbabwe! And Venezuela! And Guatemala! And Cuba!
You are a total fucking imbecile.
We are NOT a Democracy, America's founders explicitly rejected a Democracy as doomed to failure. People should spend a little less time watching the Kardashins and try reading what our founders wrote.
The members of the House are apportioned based on population and they represent the people.
The members of the Senate are apportioned 2-per-state and they represent the interests of the states themselves, which are the governmental agencies that created the federal government in the first place.
In traditional governments, power flowed top-down as in:
God/Gods etc give power to a king/emporer etc who grant some of that power to lower levels of government who then grand som of their power to lower levels of government and so-on until the individual peasant gets whatever scraps of freedom and power are left (usually very little).
The US Govt was designed to be the inverse:
God gives power to the individual. Individuals gather together and lend some of their power to a local government. local governements lend some of that power to state governments, and the state governments lend some of that power to the federal government. At each level, those lending power uphill have agreed to abide by the rulings of the uphill power, BUT ONLY IN THE AREAS WHERE POWER WAS LENT. The Constitution makes this explicit multiple times and the 10th Amendment is there as a reminder that all power not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution (a document created by the states) remains in the hands of the states and the people themselves. Decades of federal overreach and sloppy talk by politicians have clouded this, but anybody is free to go back and read the actual stuff our founders wrote explaining themselves.
The First Amendment does not grant any freedom of the press or of religion or speech; individuals already have those God-given rights and the Bill of Rights is simply there as a reminder (read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers)
The Second Amendment does not grant any gun rights; every individual human being has the God-given right to self defense anf the Bill of Rights is just a reminder that the federal government may not infringe upon those rights.
Same for the rest.
During the Cold War, American politicians got very sloppy and frequently referred to the US and its allies as "democracies" in the sense that they have democratic forms of elections empowering citizens to have a say in their governments. In truth, however, neither the US nor any of its allies is an actual democracy and that's a good thing since democracy is nothing more that formalized mob rule. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
It's also important to note that proportional representation does not result in proportional decision-making power. Consider four states with 1, 3, 4, and 5 representatives (in proportion to their population). There are 13 reps so 7 are needed for a majority.
3+4 makes a majority
3+5 makes a majority
4+5 makes a majority
The 1 rep state has 8.3% of the population and representatives, but has zero power. It has absolutely no influence on the outcome of any decisions made by this hypothetical proportional representation government. The 3 larger states can authoritatively make all decisions by themselves (can always generate a majority). The 1 rep state may as well not exist.
Creating a second legislative branch not based on proportional representation was the founding fathers' way to prevent this type of situation.
I'd highly recommend reading Hamilton by Ron Chernow. The Congress as Americans "know it" came about through an incredible set pushy guys like Hamilton, guys like Washington keeping Hamilton in check.
The Constitution as America knows it, is an incredible creation which almost didn't happen.
The Constitution has become stagnant, due to the current split Congress. I welcome billionaires stirring the pot, given the original goal of public *servants* has become public *career politicians*.
You mean the money for military bases,
Deeply loved by Red States. Sacred even. Some of us remember BRAC.
Indian reservations,
Created by the insistence of Red Staters who wanted to take the lands of the various tribes, then neglect them. See the Trail of Tears, or even the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club.
bloated government healthcare,
What, you mean the VA system> that you want to privatize to enrich yourself like with Medicare?
and inefficient educational systems?
You mean the public schools run by the local school boards?
We heard that song close to 40 years ago. There's no national institution to blame, there's no Federal Commission setting standards or operating schools outside of the BIA, DOD, and State Department. Even DC schools are run by the local government.
I'd say they thrive.
So you're saying they're doing poorly now. Interesting admission. How do they groan under the boot of the same Federal government they ostensibly control by the cheering crowds of the people?
Receiving federal funds isn't a benefit, it's a liabilitiy.
That explains why they pant so handily after the money they can extract from the states that actually try to take care of their people.
All the experienced should recognize the problem of over simplification of design often plaguing political systems and possibly the inability for the amateur programmers (corrupt or not) to grasp the issues involved.
repeat every census:
senators = max( 2, floor( state_population / lowest_state_population ) - 3 )
The concerns about a tyranny of the majority, the urban majorities enslaving the rural minorities they hardly interact with. It is a real problem and it plays out on a macro scale with the exploitation of rural nations (like the colonies; who were aware of this.)
The ERROR of the system is not the population vs geography split which people keep fighting over in extreme terms, it's the extreme simplification nearly everybody uses to think about it. If a programmer was working on such a problem they would debug themselves out of it with some if statements and multiple thresholds if not a simple equation... an AI would create a very complex function...
California deserves much MORE power because we are a democracy limiting them to just 2 senators is crazy. The amount of THEFT of $$$ and influence by the rural population is far greater than the KING was doing to the colonies. There needs to be multiple thresholds.. or an elegant equation. My example above is already better than what we have or has been suggested.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"This is an unprecedented show of support on behalf of every corner of California to create three state governments
Not at I signed the proposals to appear on that ballot simply so that I could vote against it; if it didn't appear on the ballot someone else might have the say.
"An initiative needs 366,000 signatures to appear on the ballot."
"He ultimately turned in 1.3 million signatures for a ballot measure in 2014, "only to see nearly half of them disqualified.
"He ended up about 100,000 short of the valid signatures he needed."
So:
1,300,000 * 0.5 = 366,000 - 100,000?
650,000 = 266,000?
Something doesn't add up.
Hey shitbird, the US has the highest per capita prison population. Fucking idiot fascist.
It sets a dangerous precedent. What would prevent Texas from splitting into multiple different States based on current county lines and gaining a ton of Senators? Why should we allow the political and economic failure that California is today, to gain more political power?
So where are SoCal and Cal going to get their water and electricity? The agreements were for the full state and I'm sure Oregon and Nevada would love to renegotiate.
yes, however since Senators by and large represent a more diverse group of people than do the members of the House, they also tend to be more moderate (or flat our nuts).
To avoid the problem of disqualified signatures torpedoing an initiative, knowledgeable signature gatherers know to verify every signature themselves, and they pay the people who collect the signatures only for ones that pass the verification process. Not only does it avoid the, "Get a signature even if you know the person doesn't qualify" mentality, it gets around the poison pill tactic that some opponents use, where they'll send out people to sign fraudulently (or even put ringers on the signature gathering campaign to do things like collect signatures that they throw away or are for the wrong county, etc.) just to make the proponents think they've achieved their goal and stop too early. Verifying every signature adds to the cost, but it provides clarity on how the effort is really doing and avoids having it all go to waste when the gathering effort comes up short.
Here is a question for you. In the 50 states, where do you think California ranks in terms of the fraction of its citizen population who leave each year?
Did you sleep through your entire education? Your critical reading and thinking skills are terrible.
California has more population than ANY other state in the union. It is number 1.
It is number 45 in retirees (World Atlas).
It also lopsided in percentage of military (12% of the total US population in California - which translates to a much higher in percentage of the military age population - but only 9% of US active duty and reserve military personnel). The military hates stationing people in the big coastal California cities due to the high cost of living, but has no choice because that's where the ports are, so that's where the Navy and Marine bases have to be.
California demographics are also lopsided in percentage of the poor (#35), who are leaving the state in droves to go to places with a lower cost of living. This is primarily caused by corrupt government in California, which has adopted policies that artificially raise property values and prevent low-cost housing from being built. Gotta love the greed of the property owners in the big blue California cities. San Francisco and San Jose are the worst cities in the nation for this. See The Captured Economy.
People are leaving California in droves because of the cost of living (the average person is Mississippi has more spending power than the average Californian - The Importance of the Cost of Living and Policies to Address It - Byron Schlomach) - but they are being replaced by others.
Subtract a large number, add another large number, what do you get? There's a lot to like about California, but the government is not one of those things. California government policy - supported by the brain dead idiots of the big coastal cities - has resulted in dumping huge numbers of low income people into other states, replacing them with higher income people that will spend more in the local economy and pay more in taxes. Gotta love how self-centered that is.
It's hard to say where he stands, actually. Who knows what his motive is with this plan.
One word
WATER
Rick B.
Why stop at a split, go whole hog and pull a CalExit like the british did...
see
https://www.comixology.com/Calexit-1/digital-comic/524076?ref=c2VhcmNoL2luZGV4L2Rlc2t0b3Avc2xpZGVyTGlzdC90b3BSZXN1bHRzU2xpZGVy
Couldn't we split it into a hundred states. And have all the super-rich move into one.
NC citizen here: TX has several revolutionaries who benevolently turned things over after succeeding with their goals.
Btw I'm not lumping corrupt Santa Ana in with that.
Creating a second legislative branch not based on proportional representation was the founding fathers' way to prevent this type of situation.
Be that as it may, if the problem is disproportionate decision-making power then this solution just enshrines a different imbalance, equally detrimental: the smaller states now have disproportionate influence over decisions which will predominately affect the larger states, which puts them in a position to hold the larger states' interests hostage.
The root of the problem is the reliance on a simple majority instead of consensus. Any bill which is opposed by a 49% minority, or even just 25%, needs to go back to the drawing board. The rule should be that a bill can only be passed by a 4/5 supermajority, if not the unanimous consent, of everyone affected by it. (Not all of Congress—that would just make the hostage situation even worse by allowing any minor state to veto any bill until their demands were met. Instead, if you can't achieve a clear consensus, you give the dissenters the ability to opt out in exchange for abstaining; if they take that option then they are no longer affected by the bill and their approval is not required.)
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Comrade Putin agrees enthusiastically with your blog suggestion and is ready to provide FULL ASSURANCES that America-loving Russian resources will not lift a finger to interfere with such activities WHATSOEVER !!
He would elaborate more but he has to get back to peace keeping operations in the Ukraine and enhanced operations with ex Russian operatives who may be living in the UK.
We have a perennial gov candidate that want to split Illinois in 3. Its really just a rural vs city thing and I think its likely California is the same. Folks out in the country do not like that so many votes come from the city.