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.
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 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
California is running a budget surplus and has the most successful economy in the country. Meanwhile the vast majority of red states face the same issues of ideological super majority you atribute to California and can't generate enough wealth to support their backwards economies without suckling at the feds teat. If you're so concerned over the effectiveness of state governments maybe you should try generally voting for Democrats. It seems to have worked out well for the majorities in Blue states
Furthermore, you don't seem to know how California divides politically. "Southern California" would most certainly be red.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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/
Well, I don't know about this guy, but looking at his map I see he includes San Francisco and San Mateo in "NorCal", so you're right. NorCal would be dominated by the Bay Area.
I actually agree that coastal/inland in many ways makes sense, although that would create basically permanent and unsolvable inter-state water rights disputes unless the coastal states had non-contiguous inland territories -- something that isn't unprecedented.
I doubt there's any way to divide California into equally sized pieces without favoring the Democrats. As it stands California's massive size favors the Republicans in national power and Democrats locally.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
You are posing a false dichotomy, namely that either California dictates to Nebraska how to live, or that Nebraska dictates to California how to live; either of those is tyrannical.
The correct answer is, in fact, that neither California nor Nebraska should have power over each other; the powers of the federal government should be limited to ensure that California and Nebraska coexist in a peaceful, well-defended union that allows free movement of people, goods, and services within the union. It's only progressive pricks that have taken this original, good idea and tried to turn it into an authoritarian central state. And the EU is, of course, doing the same thing.
(And, in fact, I live in California, but I would like California to have less power.)
What you call "backwater" is mainstream American. It's coastal California that's way out of touch.
And mainstream America doesn't even want to tell Californians how to live, mainstream America simply wants to be left alone by Californians. It's California that keeps insisting on pushing their environmental, welfare, social justice, and immigration agenda onto the rest of the country.
Of course all of this is mute
Moot, not mute.
One word
WATER
Rick B.