Oh, they won’t. Hawaii had to wait literally generations for Alaska to grow up enough to allow them to offset each other and go in.
Yeah, I’ll be voting against, too. The two-state split at least makes some sense, and I would consider it, although I’m not certain I would vote for it. And it would have to be Monterey County, not the city. No way would I let SoCal get Carmel!! 
That is the limiting factor in this proposal - not only would one be voting for it in concept, but also in the particulars. I am not deeply opposed to splitting the state in some manner. After all, our 2 Senators in DC stand for a whole lot more voters than 2 Senators from say, Wyoming - yet they get just one Senate vote each. However, I would not vote for the split lines to be drawn in this specific way. So, no it is!
That really is a silly assertion. While CA is big for a state, it’s not particularly remarkable as a country and there are plenty of comparable countries that muddle along just fine.
If they need subdivisions, they can do that internally without involving the federal government. However, I don’t see that size is the problem. As others have said, CA has a ridiculous initiative system and major problems with their methods for adopting budgets.
To a lesser degree, CA is also hampered by the balance of federal payments (in other words, more CA federal tax money goes out than federal spending that goes in). I suppose giving them 12 Senate seats might help them direct more money back home, but that presumes that the 12 Senators vote as a block. I’m not sure that would be a given. The NoCal Senator would probably have more in common with Oregon than with SoCal.
NorCal Senators would be too stoned to make it to Congress in time to vote.
I’m not opposed if California wants to be North California and South California. The acronyms NC and SC are already taken, so let’s call them something else. Also, it’s a very minor concern, but how would 51 stars look on the US flag?
Uh, this was kinda the point of setting the Senate up one way and the House in another. You’re only supposed to have proportional representation in one.
Why don’t I ever see this kind of nonsense for Texas or Alaska, geographically bigger states? Or is it just confirmation bias since I live in CA?
Anyway, CA is not going to be divided. The conservatives and rich people will just have to get used to use West Coast Liberals dictating their taxes and regulations. Its not that bad, they don’t need to be making THAT much money. Those people need to remember who helped them get rich rather than trying to hoard their gold into their money bins
I’ll be voting against it. It’s a libertarian minded Silicon Valley resident’s attempt to get out from what he sees as overbearing California regulation and government interference. The new states are not functional. As previously mentioned, it divides the metro areas in the Bay Area into two regions. It’s not quite as bad as splitting San Francisco from San Jose (as I understand it), but the North Bay is so interconnected to the Peninsula and East Bay that it cannot be reasonably split off.
The plan also creates perhaps the wealthiest state in the country (Silicon Valley) right next to the new poorest state in the US (Central California). For those of you unfamiliar with California geography, the Central Valley is the large semi-arid region in the middle of the state. It’s what’s between the beautiful coast and the beautiful Sierras. It’s poor farming country with bad air, mediocre infrastructure, and a struggling economy. The proposal isn’t about creating a more governable California; it’s about Silicon Valley cutting off the warty parts. The plan reads as “I got mine, screw you all.”
But the biggest flaw is water. That warty part: it’s farmland. It uses lots of water. They may have their issues with federal and state management of California’s water, as anybody who’s driven highways 5 or 99 can attest, but splitting off North California will cripple them. Central California depends on North California and Jefferson for water. So does West and South California. Those regions are going to have to come crawling back to Sacramento, in North California, for their water. That’s before we even get into the allocation and regulatory nightmares that will occur because watersheds and aqueducts will have new state lines down the middle. I believe the Silicon Valley would be sitting pretty regarding water rights. Again, I read the plan as “I got mine, screw you all.”
Water’s not the only limited resource or piece of infrastructure that will be hellish to divvy up. Our infrastructure is not remotely close to evenly spread. Silicon Valley (San Francisco/San Jose) and West California (Los Angeles) ship prisoners from their high property value, densely populated region to the warty and sparsely populated Central California. Trying to build new prisons in those areas will be a nightmare, even if they get rid of regulations like CEQA (California’s NEPA on steroids). The UC and California State college systems would require complete restructuring, and many students would suddenly find themselves out-of-state.
California is certainly governable, as it currently is. Heck, since the Governor Brown took office and the Democrats got supermajorities in the legislature, Sacramento has been able to get things done. There are some things I don’t approve of (the train project and some other aspects), but at least Republican obstructionism has been almost completely sidelined and we can get a budget and don’t shoot ourselves in the foot by refusing to do anything.
The Six Californias plan is a solution looking for a problem, and it’s not even a good solution.
How many minutes would it take them to legalize pot up there. It had better be quick, otherwise the place would be run by the Mexican cartels.
I’m voting against it also. Stupid idea.
Actually the state is working reasonably well at the moment. Republicans losing the ability to stall the budget does not equal chaos.
I live in the Central Valley. You’re being nice.
There’s no sense in taking the Central Valley to task for a bad idea originating in the Silicon Valley. You know where you are. You know what Bakersfield smells like.
This.
Splitting California into North and South isn’t unreasonable. We don’t have enough senators for our population and we represent an anomalously-large block of electoral votes. NoCal and SoCal each have a mix of prosperous and poorer areas and could function as viable states on their own. I might vote in favor of a two-way split, depending on the details.
But Draper’s plan is just a blatant attempt to extract Silicon Valley from the rest of the state. It’s a crappy deal for everyone else.
Actually I don’t. I’m many miles upwind.
ETA: And I meant you were being nice in your characterization of the Central Valley. It’s worse than you describe.
That’s the problem Six Californias is try to solve. It’s not a coincidence that the new states would provide more conservative senators than liberal senators. It’s not a coincidence that this would undermine California’s large bloc of Electoral College votes. That’s why you don’t hear anything about splitting up Texas or Alaska.
I think he means poor in an economic sense. There may be lots of farmland but it doesn’t produce jobs.
Well, yes, you do hear Texans talk about how they can legally split up into five states any time they like. And you do hear Alaskans from outside Anchorage say how they wish the city would become unanchored somehow. But it’s all bullshit.
I absolutely mean “poor” in an economic sense. It’s good enough growing country. The region does produce jobs, but they aren’t high-paying ones.
Plus, who wants to live in a state called “Silicon Valley”?
Indeed. The last thing we need is more Senators from Alaska.
I’m betting the prop gets clobbered in Silicon Valley. It is not about SV really, it is about an asshole 1%er wanting to play with the state for his amusement.
Conspiracy theory: It is not Draper, it is Khosla pulling his strings so that the new state will do away with beach access rules which will keep the 99% riff-raff off of his beach.