The interest in secession is understandable. First of all, with about 40 million people, California is a very large state. In terms of population, it is about twice the size as the next largest state. Secondly, the state is dominated, but not completely, by one political party, leaving the members of the other party disaffected. And, third, the disaffected citizen of the states live in identifiable regions of the state, such as the proposed “South California.”
The proposal, however, addresses only the concerns of the disaffected citizens of the southern part of the state. A comprehensive proposal would seek to serve the interests of all the citizens of the state. A logical way to do this would be to split three states, not one, from the present state.
The first, which could be named South California, would include the counties to the south and west of Los Angeles (Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties) (these are not exactly the ones included in Jeff Stone’s proposal).
The second would be the single county of Los Angeles.
The third would be the counties comprising the metropolitan area of San Francisco (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma).
And, California, still with its capital at Sacramento, would comprise the remaining counties.
The four states would range in population from 8 to 11 million people, making each of them comparable in size to the largest states excepting Texas and Florida. Two of the states (California and South California) would have a mix of urban and rural areas, as most states have. Two would be a new type of state (for the U.S.): metropolitan areas that double as states. (Other federal republics of the world feature metropolitan areas as states.)
In terms of politics, the states of California and South California would be competitive as between Republicans and Democrats. The states of Los Angeles and San Francisco would be so heavily Democratic that it is possible that the two main parties of these states would be the Democrats and a left-wing party such as the Greens.
The important thing, politically, is that there would only be a relatively small number of citizens who would be disaffected by the political choices available to them. Furthermore, within each state, politicians will have to be more pragmatic since the prospect of being subsidized by a larger entity will no longer exist.
Now, here’s the kicker: Under the U.S. Constitution, new states can be formed out of old only on the petition of the legislature of the old state and the acceptance of the U.S. Congress. While I doubt that the legislature of California would ever agree to a dismemberment of the state, the people of California can act directly as the legislature through a citizens initiative.
Some one needs to be pushing this.
Any effort to break the total domination by only one party of our culture, economy , educational system is to be applauded.
2 at the minimum , is the only way to allow for political competition which would fix at least parts California.
In terms of politics, the states of California and South California would be competitive as between Republicans and Democrats. The states of Los Angeles and San Francisco would be so heavily Democratic that it is possible that the two main parties of these states would be the Democrats and a left-wing party such as the Greens.
I agree with you. The interesting part is that the areas containing farming and forest, there's not enough support for a 'Green' party. But, in the city states LA & San Francisco, concrete jungles, there is enough support to have that 'Green' party. Isn't that typical of libs. The residents of the concrete jungles are actually the least informed on natural environments and have the most extreme views. They are in fact ignorant troublemakers telling more informed people how to run things.
Maybe we should find a simpler solution. Instead of splitting up states to reduce the negative impact of ignorant libs, why don't we just ignore them. Don't let them vote.