Tim Draper’s idea. It will be an initiative on the ballot in November. Then Congress would have to approve it, of course, and admit six new states (each with two Senators) to the Union.
The proposed map makes no sense to me: To begin with, if we’re going to go down this road, then every metropolitan area should be one state; but this map divides the San Francisco metro area between Silicon Valley and North California. And what sense does it make to put LA and San Diego in different states?!
But, those are details. Draper’s point is that CA as one state is just too big to govern. Is he right? And how would subdividing it improve matters anyway?
Stan Delaplane suggested dividing California into 50 states. Vertically. Somehow, that one always worked for me.
As much as I love my home state, warts and all, it really is too big, and contains too many divergent zones and populations, to vote and manage as one entity. But this proposition stinks, like all blatantly self-serving R plans.
A North/South split at the county lines just north of Bakersfield makes enormous sense on every level.
This proposal would of course never pass Congress.
But nothing is stopping California from redividing into 6 super counties, with the overwhelming mass of legislation/spending transferred to these super-counties.
I had been trying to read up on this but there is so much counter-information, possibly due to different splits, that I am not sure how the state could be split and adequately represent their constituents.
Are there clear lines between rural/suburban in California?
I am not sure if there are clear lines between pure rural and suburban areas in California…
Would achieve nothing except further gridlock, since there is no level of ‘check and balance’ that would make these super-counties work together harmoniously. It would be like a pre-federal statehood battle: enough power and control to be an ass, without enough co-commitment and responsibility to find compromises.
But a single North/South split is long overdue. It doesn’t solve every single factional or population issue, but it pretty neatly divides the two major regions of population, land use, industry, political bent and - oh yeah - water.
No, Article IV expressly allows this sort of nonsense:
Setting aside Tim Draper’s desire to keep all of the riches of Silicon Valley for ourselves, the problem with California isn’t that it’s one state, it’s the initiative process (the whole six states thing being a perfect example).
Subdividing the state would not solve anything; eliminating the initiative process (something I’ve been advocating since I worked for the California legislature 30 years ago) might actually help.
I’ll be voting against it. I wouldn’t go for more than two states, with Monterey and North parts being Alta California and everything South to Baja being Southern California. I get the guy wants a more conservative US senate, but I can’t see the US senators diluting their power this much.
A few thoughts / responses:
LA is a very different place from Orange County and San Diego. It makes sense to separate them.
California has very different needs, interests, etc. The ability to influence Sacramento from any given county is difficult at best.
Draper really just wants Silicon Valley to be able to get more competitive with other states, especially with taxes. He wants to foster more competition among the California states as well.
California is also under-represented in the Senate for our population
Republicans in California are not represented at all at the State level due to the #s. This is their own fault due to the idiots that they have put up over time, plus changing demographics though.
