# Yes California | Scenarios and/Numbers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2016, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932 "2016-11-14T03:43:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zero-syde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Zero-syde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zero-syde)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/21 "2016-11-14T21:30:51Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > It’s really not hard to do the math. Unsurprisingly, this is a wild exaggeration. California has 12 percent of the voters and 10.2% of the electoral votes, so a Californian vote is worth about 85 percent of the national average. Actually, you’re right, it’s not hard to do the math. So, it’s not 1/5th, it’s more like 1/3. Which isn’t all that wild (20% vs 33% of a voter is peanuts when it should be 100%). By the way, Rhode Island @ ~1m inhabitants has 4 electoral votes to California’s 38.8m inhabitants 55. Were California equal to RI, that would be _one hundred and fifty five votes_. > [@RickJay](#): > > This is about the same ratio as Texas, Florida, or New York. All the larger states give votes to the very smallest states. To protect the power of slavery… which we don’t have anymore, and shouldn’t be protecting. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/22 "2016-11-14T21:57:34Z")
> [@Zero-syde](#): > > –California gets about $0.78 for each dollar in taxes it spends. Leaving the union while transferring federal income taxes to state would both allow it to retain all federally funded programs, plus bring something on the order of $20 billion in state revenues, which erases the CA deficit. These numbers are similar for the other states. Don’t count your cost savings before they are hatched. Assuming you can replace all the functions the federal government provides at the same cost ignores possible economies of scale. There’s one Coast Guard Academy to train their officers nationwide. Assuming CA could run a much smaller training program for the same cost per officer is perilous. That runs broadly across all services the federal government provides to the state. Another issue is the accounting behind that number: Just as an example, I have a cousin now retired from the Park Service, who was trained to help with major forest fires. All of his work putting out fires was outside Michigan (with many of the fires he worked being in CA or other states in a possible greater Bluelandia.) His pay, benefits, and now retirement check all look like it was federal funding going to Michigan even when he was working on being prepared for fighting fires outside the state. At best the additional costs associated with sending him to the state with a fire could be tracked but I’d want to make sure I knew if I was voting to secede based on getting back .22 cents on the tax dollar… Diversification to minimize costs associated with risk: The federal government can effectively self insure against risks nationwide. My cousin was a way to mitigate the risk of fires everywhere in the nation. The federal government could look at risk on teh average across the nation to make sure they had enough responders in place. CA would only be able to look at it across the state. That smaller pool means less average of risk and quite possibly higher costs for a bad year. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Doesn’t California decide this? Or are the primary dates set by the national parties? States decide within the rules the parties establish. Democrats even give bonus delegates to late states. CA by going late got a 20% bonus in delegates for selecting June in the last cycle along with a %15 bonus for being in a regional cluster. CA traded possible irrelevancy by going so late for a big chunk of extra representation. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/23 "2016-11-14T21:57:35Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > One subject hasn’t been addressed - what nation would provide recognition and military sponsorship until Westlandia got on it’s feet? History suggests that independence requires a big brother, so to speak, to provide military and economic support against the original parent country coming in and taking occupation with force. > > Would it be China? How about Russia? mbh mentions Mexico. Any of these would have serious downstream repercussions on the direction of the new nation. If California engaged in an _armed_ insurrection … I can’t imagine anyone trying to help her against the USA … Russia, China … how do they get troops over … how do they get past the America Pacific Fleet … why would any power risk a war with the USA? Using the numbers above, we have 12% of the general population , not hard to estimate 12% of the military population are Californian … that’s a lot of open rebellion within the military’s ranks … ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/24 "2016-11-14T22:05:16Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Using the numbers above, we have 12% of the general population , not hard to estimate 12% of the military population are Californian … that’s a lot of open rebellion within the military’s ranks … There are a few issues to consider: 1. What % of the military is native Californians 2. What % of the military is stationed in California 3. What % of the above two groups might fight for a free and independent California against the USA? I suspect that the answer to #1 is a bit less than 12%, but that’s just a WAG, not based on anything factual. I suspect #2 might be higher than 12%, but again WAG. #3 is the important one, and I suspect it’s _way_ less than 12% (once again, an unknown). I’d expect that those that most of group #3 would be dead or captured within a few months. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/25 "2016-11-14T22:37:44Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > If California engaged in an _armed_ insurrection … I can’t imagine anyone trying to help her against the USA … Russia, China … how do they get troops over … how do they get past the America Pacific Fleet … why would any power risk a war with the USA? > > Using the numbers above, we have 12% of the general population , not hard to estimate 12% of the military population are Californian … that’s a lot of open rebellion within the military’s ranks … I’m not suggesting it starts as an armed insurrection. But what is the alternative? Westlandia: “So hey, we voted and…um…we decided to go it alone.” USA: “The hell you say! You and what army?” Russia/China: “Well, we like the idea!” USA: “Now, now, OK, let’s talk about this.” It doesn’t start as an armed conflict, and it doesn’t need to turn into one. But there would need to be some backstop. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/26 "2016-11-14T22:39:58Z")
Can people stop talking about secession every time a vote doesn’t go their way? We laughed at the Texans for discussing it. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2016, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/27 "2016-11-14T23:47:43Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > It is just a rhetorical question and there is no answer because of that. Once a state is admitted to the union it is in until the the U.S. as a whole folds. There is no way to reverse that. The unpleasantness of the 1860’s made that very clear. It would be a shooting war if there was ever a true rebellion and California would lose. California is resource rich in general but in still in deep debt and has extreme water issues that were only given a temporary reprieve through luck. The whole state (potential nation) would fail within a few years because it is barely governable even as a state. > > Texas has a much better claim on succession rights and even that would not work. No reason we couldn’t amend the Constitution to allow for some kind of orderly dissolution. I agree that a unilateral secession won’t work, but if some state or states want to go _and_ the other states also want them to go, then there’s probably a possible compromise that doesn’t lead to a shooting war. That said, this is a dumb idea. California should not secede. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/28 "2016-11-15T00:10:02Z")
There’s a criminal insurgency on the southern border run by cartels that might want to expand control north during the turmoil while CA dealt with the loss of federal security forces. They already possess effective smuggling routes and love money so they are a potential source of support to other groups inside the new nation. The people in the rural red leaning CA counties, faced with losing their US citizenship and guns despite not agreeing may have the necessary grievances to support their own secession back to the US or an armed insurgency. It’s worse if the US decides to covertly support them while pretending to accept the secession. We can say we accept secession and still unleash SOCOM and the CIA. If you include the PNW in great Bluelandia that includes some of the key areas for the left’s part of our violent extremist underbelly. Since even the eco-terrorist portions of that are strongly correlated with the anarchist elements they aren’t necessarily going to be happy even in a left Bluelandia with strong rule of law. Given the period of weakened security infrastructure when federal assets withdraw that give them a window to potentially exploit. There’s some real internal, and just across the border, security challenges. If those risks come home to haunt them possibilities: - CA let’s a significant portion of it’s territory secede back to form a new US state. - CA effectively defeats the various security threats. They do it by spending quite a bit more than the US does on security for many years, increased militarization of their police force, and possibly being required to call up their unorganized militia to meet force ratios necessary (aka draft people). - CA doesn’t defeat the insurgents and falls. Who knows what government comes out of that and whether they’d stay independent or petition for statehood again. - Neither the state or insurgents win and they drift towards failed nation status with high levels of internal violence. I’d assume eventually the US intervenes to mitigate the risk of a failed state on our border. ---
**Author:** ![NetTrekker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nettrekker/32/2909_2.png) [@NetTrekker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NetTrekker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/29 "2016-11-15T00:24:20Z")
A good place to start: > **[Yes\_California\_Calexit\_Book.pdf](https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/yescalifornia/pages/1/attachments/original/1475330254/Yes_California_Calexit_Book.pdf?1475330254)** > > 2.16 MB ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/30 "2016-11-15T00:28:02Z")
> [@Zero-syde](#): > > On the flipside, CA independence affords certain benefits - especially if it’s part of a greater Oregon+Washington+California movement: > –California gets about $0.78 for each dollar in taxes it spends. Leaving the union while transferring federal income taxes to state would both allow it to retain all federally funded programs, plus bring something on the order of $20 billion in state revenues, which erases the CA deficit. These numbers are similar for the other states. being a net contributor to the US economy doesn’t mean CA is or can be self-sufficient. > [@](#): > > –CA has no say in elections whatsoever. In general, the majority will not vote for anything republican, even a centrist, ergo the democrats can run anyone and anything and Californians have no choice but to support them. Independence means a chance to update the first-past-the-post-winner-take-all electoral system with something like Single Transferable Vote and a Parliamentary system that would churn out the most preferred candidate rather than the least hated candidate. Most states have no real say in most elections. It was an aberration this year that Michigan was even in play. > [@](#): > > –CA and its liberal neighbors would have the freedom to enact gun control, abolish citizens united, and many many other +70% local approval measures that are blocked by the rest of the Union (eg, immigration reform, social security, etc). In general, this would make voters _very_ happy with their government in a time when congress is lucky to get over an 8% approval rating. Yet your Proposition system has made plenty of Californians very unhappy. Have you forgotten Prop. 8 already? > [@](#): > > CA can also mitigate at least one of the cons above: the “no water no food” argument has already gained traction. Colorado and other states need California’s breadbasket as much as California needs the water. Likely, a deal would be struck for water rights that would be similar to status quo. how is that “likely?” Stuff is grown in California for its expediency, not because it’s meant to be grown in California. Irrigation and draining the Colorado River dry means you can grow stuff _despite_ being in California, not _because_ of it. You take away your “breadbasket,” someone else will make a new one. > [@](#): > > Put that way, it does seem like CA would _benefit_ from Secession more than it would lose… but surely I’m overlooking a lot and oversimplifying. We’re also ignoring that the US military would not idly hand over all of its western ports and nuclear bases. You are all way oversimplifying it and being way, way too optimistic about what would happen. You wouldn’t be in NAFTA, and if you assume you’d be granted membership “just because” then you’ll be sorely disappointed. You would need water from outside sources, and if you assume it’ll just be given to you out of generosity you’ll be sorely disappointed. > [@](#): > > tldr: What would the net effect of CA secession be, with all this in mind? Also, what would change, realistically, for the average Californian? Lets assume a “best case scenario” with Oregon and Washignton joining along with California in a “New Cascadian Republic.” It would hurt the US for a while, and destroy California. you “#Calexit” and “Yes California” people seem to treat secession just like a 12 year old who is pissed off at his parents. “Don’t tell me what to do! I can take care of myself! I’m running away!.. but you’ll still feed me and do my laundry and take me to school, right?” Your “best case assumptions” are little more than hoping you can secede from the US but still be treated as though you’re a US state. Not. Gonna. Fucking. Happen. You secede, YOYO. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/31 "2016-11-15T00:34:35Z")
> [@Zero-syde](#): > > As for California, it has virtually no power at all when it comes to elections. It has no say in democratic primaries, as it is one of the last states to hold one and most of the candidates have dropped out by then. It also has virtually no say in the general election, because the right wing candidate is always so unpalatable that _whoever_ is on the left automatically gets the vote - there is no reason whatsoever for a candidate to appeal to Californian voters or address issues unique to them. Just be less right wing than your rival, and you’ve got 55 electoral votes, _guaranteed_. It’s actually a _bad_ idea for either side to waste time in California. I was shocked Trump bothered. > > We also count for, what, 1/5 of a voter due to the “fairness” of the electoral college? I live and vote in Washington DC. Cry me a river about how California has no political power. Seriously, this complaint is like listening to the wife of that corrupt CEO who complained that her life had been destroyed because they had to sell three of their five houses. Boo-hoo. This is such nonsense. Next you’re going to claim that Wisconsin, with a sixth of the electoral votes, is more powerful than California. Right? ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/32 "2016-11-15T00:43:43Z")
Oh, and bitching about the Electoral College is short-sighted. The 12th Amendment just says the President and Vice President are voted for by Electors appointed by the states. it does not say how the states must appoint electors. Most have gone with “winner-take-all,” but Maine and Nebraska haven’t. They apportion electors based on district. so if you want to change things, it might be worth your while to try to change how your state chooses electors. ---
**Author:** ![Unpronounceable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9de0a6/32.png) [@Unpronounceable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unpronounceable)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/33 "2016-11-15T01:17:18Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Doesn’t California decide this? Or are the primary dates set by the national parties? The state sets them - but in 2008, when two states moved their primaries up, the “Democratic” party threw their votes out. CA is pretty liberal though, so they’d probably be screwed over less. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/34 "2016-11-15T04:21:51Z")
> [@Zero-syde](#): > > Actually, a lot of rural white, middle aged men really _do_ have it rough. White people aren’t a monolith. _Some_ white, middle aged white men have tremendous power and are doing fantastically. The rest, especially the rural ones? Not so much, really. > > As for California, it has virtually no power at all when it comes to elections. It has no say in democratic primaries, as it is one of the last states to hold one and most of the candidates have dropped out by then. It also has virtually no say in the general election, because the right wing candidate is always so unpalatable that _whoever_ is on the left automatically gets the vote - there is no reason whatsoever for a candidate to appeal to Californian voters or address issues unique to them. Just be less right wing than your rival, and you’ve got 55 electoral votes, _guaranteed_. It’s actually a _bad_ idea for either side to waste time in California. I was shocked Trump bothered. > > We also count for, what, 1/5 of a voter due to the “fairness” of the electoral college? > > I haven’t seen any good data on this. If anyone has any kind of breakdown of California’s net exports - and the specific contents thereof - I’d _love_ to read it. I just don’t know where to look for good data. > > Edit: > [Beacon Economics – Independent Economic Research](https://beaconecon.com/products/trade_report) > [Economy of California - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California) > _imports_ are harder to pin down though. Funny “logic” that 55 electoral votes, the greatest of any state, is interpreted as having 0 influence. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/35 "2016-11-15T04:37:44Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > If California engaged in an _armed_ insurrection … I can’t imagine anyone trying to help her against the USA … Russia, China … how do they get troops over … how do they get past the America Pacific Fleet … why would any power risk a war with the USA? > > Using the numbers above, we have 12% of the general population , not hard to estimate 12% of the military population are Californian … that’s a lot of open rebellion within the military’s ranks … The military leans right wing. You can’t be serious to suggest that the US military in the 2000s still has huge state loyalty that surpasses national loyalty. You think a right leaning military is going to stand idly by and let a the Union fracture to sooth the feeling of the left? 44% of the military is from the South. [US Military Is Not Representative of Country - Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-is-not-representative-of-country-2014-7) You think they want to see another region succeed to secede? Nah. Which would be somewhat ironic. ---
**Author:** ![Zero-syde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Zero-syde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zero-syde)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/36 "2016-11-15T08:28:56Z")
> [@jz78817](#): > > being a net contributor to the US economy doesn’t mean CA is or can be self-sufficient. Not on its own, it doesn’t. It may have been buried in the thread, but if you look I actually asked for figures on intrastate imports to make that determination. > [@jz78817](#): > > Most states have no real say in most elections. It was an aberration this year that Michigan was even in play. I agree. That’s a great example of why the status quo is a terrible system. > [@jz78817](#): > > Yet your Proposition system has made plenty of Californians very unhappy. Have you forgotten Prop. 8 already? The proposition finds meager justification _because_ of the dysfunction a 2 party system creates. It wouldn’t be necessary if the legislature was actually beholden to the people, but it isn’t. Consider the case of Scott Walker - a governor, yes, but that position is even _less_ safe than an incumbent state legislator and subject to many of the same political forces. Now it’s true that bad propositions can and will make it through… but the escape valve there is preferable to not having it, even if it does occasionally add to the screw heap. > [@jz78817](#): > > how is that “likely?” Stuff is grown in California for its expediency, not because it’s meant to be grown in California. Irrigation and draining the Colorado River dry means you can grow stuff _despite_ being in California, not _because_ of it. You take away your “breadbasket,” someone else will make a new one. You don’t really have the option. Re-purposing huge swaths of land for growing essential food plus purchasing all the food from other exporters that you’ll need until that new foodstuff comes in is ruinously expensive and wouldn’t sit well with those land owners (even if they’re already farmers, nobody likes the state saying “GROW THIS NOW” and I doubt the state could afford to pay them all off). It also takes time, time you haven’t got because even mildly disgruntled people tend to go reign of terror when food becomes a problem. Both parties would prefer interstate trade relations to return to status quo ante-…secession(?) to the alternative, so yes, compromise is likely. > [@jz78817](#): > > It would hurt the US for a while, and destroy California. you “#Calexit” and “Yes California” people seem to treat secession just like a 12 year old who is pissed off at his parents. “Don’t tell me what to do! I can take care of myself! I’m running away!.. but you’ll still feed me and do my laundry and take me to school, right?” You people that refuse to read basic English treat civil discourse “just like a 12 year old” who’s pissed at the neighbor. I’m _not_ a “#Calexit” person. I asked for a rational discussion of the pros and cons, specifically to establish a very well constructed numerical argument _against_ Calexit. Did you just skip the first half of the OP? > [@Ravenman](#): > > I live and vote in Washington DC. Cry me a river about how California has no political power. Seriously, this complaint is like listening to the wife of that corrupt CEO who complained that her life had been destroyed because they had to sell three of their five houses. Boo-hoo. Apparently you’re a fan of the oppression Olympics. I’m not. The injustice done to residents in Washington DC doesn’t suddenly make injustice elsewhere meaningless. So if you want a cookie for medaling gold in the OO, it’s all yours, but please make a salient point. > [@](#): > > This is such nonsense. Next you’re going to claim that Wisconsin, with a sixth of the electoral votes, is more powerful than California. Right? Swing states matter more, I’ll say that. You’re the first to mention Wisconsin. You’ll have to forgive me if ludicrous strawmen arguments don’t get any more of my attention. > [@jz78817](#): > > Oh, and bitching about the Electoral College is short-sighted. The 12th Amendment just says the President and Vice President are voted for by Electors appointed by the states. it does not say how the states must appoint electors. Most have gone with “winner-take-all,” but Maine and Nebraska haven’t. They apportion electors based on district. The college itself is a terrible idea. Changing from winner take all is a step in the right direction, but it wont cure the underlying problem. > [@jz78817](#): > > so if you want to change things, it might be worth your while to try to change how your state chooses electors. This is certainly a more realistic approach. That, or abolition of the college, which would probably have even more popular support than mere local reform, given how uninformed voters typically are and how much they hate the college when they catch wind of it. Unfortunately it veers into off topic. The discussion is centered about a theoretical secession. > [@octopus](#): > > Funny “logic” that 55 electoral votes, the greatest of any state, is interpreted as having 0 influence. And yet you argue that having no ability to influence electoral politics beyond being a rubber stamp for the DNC is somehow having major influence. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/37 "2016-11-15T12:32:23Z")
That state that currently has a dozen or so 'pubs to congress and has sent 'pub senators and voted for 'pub presidents in this millennial’s lifetime sure is a rubber stamp. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/38 "2016-11-15T14:01:51Z")
> [@Zero-syde](#): > > Apparently you’re a fan of the oppression Olympics. I’m not. The injustice done to residents in Washington DC doesn’t suddenly make injustice elsewhere meaningless. So if you want a cookie for medaling gold in the OO, it’s all yours, but please make a salient point. There are 49 states, 16 territories, and the District of Columbia that each have less political power than California. Sure, some of them have an advantage in one particular area – let’s say that New Hampshire gets a cookie because of its presidential primary date. But then, California has oodles of more political power in myriad other ways that makes California the most politically powerful state in the nation. But you think you’re oppressed? Give me a break. > [@](#): > > Swing states matter more, I’ll say that. You’re the first to mention Wisconsin. You’ll have to forgive me if ludicrous strawmen arguments don’t get any more of my attention. Swing states only matter more if you ignore everything else going on in the country. A while back there was a GQ thread about a hypothetical election in which one million people voted for candidate A, and one million and one people voted for candidate B. There were people who, apparently in full seriousness, thought that only one person’s vote mattered in that election. This is the same fallacy that leads you to think that swing states matter more. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/39 "2016-11-15T14:21:12Z")
> [@Zero-syde](#): > > Actually, you’re right, it’s not hard to do the math. So, it’s not 1/5th, it’s more like 1/3. I provided the numbers. California has 10.2% (55/538) of the electoral votes, and about twelve percent of the population. That is not a third of a vote. Where the heck does that number come from? What you’re doing is deliberately comparing California to overrepresented states, but that’s not the logical way to approach it or else you don’t arrive at a correct figure for the average voter. California has to be compared to the AVERAGE, not another outlier. Comparing California to Rhode Island and saying “oh gosh, we only get a third of a vote” is precisely as silly as comparing California to Texas and saying “Hey, we get exactly the same vote!” And yet, silly as that would be, it would in a sense actually be less silly, since of course there are more Texans than Rhode Islanders. I’m not saying it’s entirely fair Californians get about 6/7ths of the vote the average American does. But it’s a long way from 1/5th or 1/3rd, and a degree of intellectual honesty is merited in a serious discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932/40 "2016-11-15T17:27:25Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > Westlandia: “So hey, we voted and…um…we decided to go it alone.” > USA: “The hell you say! You and what army?” > Russia/China: “Well, we like the idea!” > USA: “Now, now, OK, let’s talk about this.” You think Russia and China are extremely likely to threaten war with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal over the right of a small population to unilaterally secede from an established country? Have you ever paid attention to how large multi-ethnic countries with mutliple dissatisfied minorities feel about unilateral secession by said minorities, or how little major powers interfere in each other’s purely internal affairs? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-california-scenarios-and-numbers/771932.md?page=3)