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."
Only because you fail to understand the senate exists to represent states. The house is supposed to represent the population / people.
It's the stupid 17th amendment that makes this an issue and it's the main reason our federal government has become some completely disfunctional.
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
It's not weird. It's intentional. The intent is to require broad geographic as well as popular consensus to pass laws that apply to the entire country, thereby protecting minority rights from the tyranny of a 50%+1 majority concentrated in any one place.
No it isn't. If ten people live on a forested mountain, the one hundred people in the town in the next valley should not be able to vote to deforest the mountain.
We are a republic. We are not a democracy. Democracies are stupid.
There aren't any left-wing states in the USA.