"From Absaroka to Yazoo: The 124 United States That Could’ve Been"
http://andrewshears.com/2011/12/08/the-united-states-that-couldve-been/
Posted on 01/07/2014 12:42:38 PM PST by Baynative
There’s nothing like a guy with a few million bucks to lend instant credibility to a previously penny-ante movement to split up the state of California.
Venture capitalist Tim Draper of Silicon Valley has filed paperwork for a November ballot measure that would divide California into six states, calling the Golden State as presently constituted “too big and bloated.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Sorry, that was only five.
How about “North Mexico” for the sixth offshoot state?
I’m sure the liberal power structure would gerrymander the new states along liberal lines.
2012 Presidential Election, non-Hispanic White Voters:
Romney - 54%
Obama - 44%
However, in 2012, non-Hispanic whites were just 39% of California's population.
If this happens in a hurry, it is because they want to make 12 democrat senators instead of 2, and they figured out a way to ‘gerrymander’ new state borders.
Agreed - 25-to-30 years ago, such a break-up might actually be feasible.... but given today’s electronic age... wow, this would make the Y2K changes look like trivial.
Every Commercial website on earth would have to be changed, every address in the several states, area codes would have to be adjusted and added. Never mind the new governmental infrastructures required, news laws passed; obsolete ones removed; it would be crazy. Some of it could be done incrementally, but it would be an enormous and costly task.
I wish ILL-ANNOY would break up into at least 2 states. The non-Rahmabad area would thrive if the Republicans figured out how to lead using conservative principles.
You would have to slice very carefully.
Didn’t Feinstein pull 63% last time?
That’s a solid majority of Dems statewide.
RE: “Most people don’t realize that California has some very strong conservative regions.”
See my statistical Comment #23.
Yep! Both of us voted for Romney!
One benefit of it is... there would go the rock-solid guarantee of 55 EVs to the democrats every single Presidential election. Two or three of those new states would likely swing red.
You point out the biggest problem we face in the US as a whole. California has always been a trendsetter.
The demographic tide is heavily against us.
Non-white Americans are strongly Democrat.
The thing is, they have to put the new state capitals somewhere, and the towns where they do and the counties that they're in (and maybe the adjoining counties) automatically and magically become very very pro-big government.
Given the great egos of San Franciscans, I also can't see them ever ending up at the tail end of somebody else's state, like an afterthought. Or Los Angeles somehow becoming "West California" for that matter (though the names of the new states aren't set in stone yet).
The key here will probably be to do what Alaska and Hawaii did to get statehood: partner up liberal and conservative areas. Believe it or not, Hawaii was the gop state and Alaska was the ‘rat state. They partnered to get around the realpolitik issue of changing the composition of the Senate.
California, and many other states are far too large to have their populations fairly represented at the Federal level (even at the State level, in some instances). Here in Ohio, a three state model would work well, too.
California? Likely at least three, maybe four, states. Six might be on the high side, but it should be up to the folks in the current state to decide.
A grand idea, all in all.
Yes with CA+IL+NY the Dems start the race to 270 with 104 already in the bag. A big lead that requires no effort.
I think something like that is inevitable. There’s too many deep divisions between the political sides of the spectrum to fix. The left is too entrenched to be outed fully, so conservatives will have to form their own areas.
“The thing is, they have to put the new state capitals somewhere, and the towns where they do and the counties that they’re in (and maybe the adjoining counties) automatically and magically become very very pro-big government.”
Why do you need a capitol? Keep in mind that no new state has happened since 1959: well before the advent of the internet. Why not just do it electronically and skip the added infrastructure?
Come to think of it, perhaps one or more of the existing states should go to an electronic model.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.