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's not a "weird system" at all: the US is a union of states. If you want the rural states to be part of the union, then those rural states want to be assured that they can't steamrolled by the high population states. It works the same way in the EU. It's the way free and voluntary associations between states work.
The kind of majoritarianism you believe in, extended to the rest of the world, would mean that China and India get to tell everybody else in the world how to live their lives. I don't think that's a good idea.
RightwingNutjob pointed out:
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.
You're correct about that being the original intent of the bicameral national legislature of the USA. However, in actual practice, the effect has turned out quite differently.
In large part, that's because the Founders could not possibly have forseen the evolution of California, for example, from a Spanish territory a continent away into the largest constituent state of the Union by population, with the largest economy of all the states (and currently the 10th largest in the world) two centuries after the Constitution was ratified - and still, by law, having no greater power in the Senate than Wyoming, with 1.5% of California's population (as of the 2010 census).
It's a product of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
"Prediction is difficult - particularly about the future."
- Danish proverb, most famously cited by Neils Bohr
Check out my novel.
I've been saying this for years. The only way to fix the problems is to add about 2000 new Congressmen. But do you think any of the 435 wants to dilute their power?
Hell no. Why would they. The failure to pass the Apportionment Amendment was the greatest failure of the Republic, it doomed us from the start.
Hmm... is not ridiculous that the three states of Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota have a combined population of only 2/3 of one percent of nation? Clearly they should be required to merge to form one state. You must agree right?
Ah, the right wing is always trying to cook up new rules to grant themselves more power.
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/...