This could cause issues in many ways,maybe good or bad. Goes to show what "he who has the most gold, makes the rules" can do,not that we don't know that. For one it will mean more Senators, who could and probably will be Democrats. With the split, could it cause another welfare state,worse than the whole now? What about business' and their taxes? How will it impact them? Just speculating.

Wouldn't it be easier just to give the state back to Mexico and relocate the impending wall?

Even if this ballot initiative passes - and based on nothing tangible, just gut, I don't think it wll - there are a lot more hoops to jump through before divvying up California into three states.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Wouldn't it be easier just to give the state back to Mexico and relocate the impending wall?

They wouldn't want it.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
from 'the visual capitalist.com'

a series of 5 maps of US with surprising graphics, this one is of the population density of Cali:

Not big enough.

quote:

Not big enough.

I've contacted the sig office about help on that;
if I knew how to resize the image, it would already by done.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Uh, why don't you people look at a map of the split before you repeat the same question? Is it that hard?

The answers are there if you spend 30 seconds reading ANY article on the initiative.

But . . . but . . . but, the internet is for spouting off without knowing what you are actually talking about.

The risk is the makeup of the four new senators. The proposed maps might generate some new conservative senators - hard to say. Risky, in my view.

It shouldn't affect the makeup of the representatives, since their districts are small.

I think the chance of this happening is very, very small. Close to zero.

Just an FYI, the West has been duly Kalifornicated and indoctrinated with diversity e.g:
https://www.boisepridefest.org, So the division of said Kalifornia is moot point and a waste of time.

CA Being CA, and the massive amount of progressives that control everything, its doubtful that the actual results will be anything near the proposed results.

If the left is agreed to vote this in, and have bought into the change then it's clear they have a plan to increase their numbers in the house and Senate, and remember commies don't take a dump without a plan....

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by DSgrouse:
A better one would t just cut cali off of federal funding, kick it to the curb and build a fucking wall around it.

I believe that I read somewhere, can't remember where so I can not provide a citation nor a link, that California actually sends more tax money to the fed than they receive back.

I have no idea whether this is truth or fiction.

This is a distorted stat that California libs like to trot out periodically.

Because CA is a high tax and cost-of-living state, people tend to pay a lot in taxes while they work, but often choose to move after retiring to escape those same high taxes and costs. Therefore, while people are working in CA, the state gets to claim they are contributing to the Federal budget, but then they outsource their retirees to another state when they begin drawing Social Security and Medicare. This distorts the contributions.

Also, as a state with a long coastal border, the national defense disproportionally benefits CA, but the costs of that defense are not tallied against the ledger of contributions. Also figure in the cost of border protection.

In short, CA liberals like to act like the Federal government would be hurt by their lack of participation, and CA would be better off financially by going it alone. In reality, the opposite is true.

quote:

The risk is the makeup of the four new senators. The proposed maps might generate some new conservative senators - hard to say. Risky, in my view.

Inherently. Will they be liberal now? How about in ten years? Twenty?

I am a NorCal resident, born and raised in SoCal so I've lived on both ends of the state. I support the State of Jefferson, but not this shit plan. I'd support a plan that puts San Fran and LA in the same state, but not one that puts them in separate states.

This plan would create a situation where two of the states would most certainly be controlled by democrats. San Fran would control its state, LA would also be able to do the same thing. The third state would be broke dick poor because the two largest cities are in other states and the various counties that would make up the third state are all pretty rural, have weak tax bases and little in the way of resources.

This is the worst proposal of all the various plans that I've seen so it stands to reason that it would be the one to make it onto the ballet. As others have said I believe this would result in 4 of the 6 new senators being democrats. The only way this works and gains traction is making the coast one state with the shithole libs all stuck together with the rest of the state (which is conservative). All the water rights and resoures (ag, etc) would be in the conservative state and the libs would have to pay through the nose for water, etc. For this reason and many others this whole deal is DOA....

I HATE this state's gov't and I want to see the gov't broken up in the worst way so that some sanity can return, but I won't be voting in favor of this shit plan.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
Is it mandatory that all 3 new States be admitted to the Union ?

This occurred to me as a serious question, because any number of States could divide themselves up into smaller States solely for the purpose of gaining more Senators and more relative political power. So, legally, is it really just a decision that is up to an individual State ? Since it really does affect the nation, do we have any say in the final situation ? Have people just assumed that all new States are still part of the "United States" ?

No, it is not mandatory that any new States be admitted to the Union. First, the petition vote must pass. Then it must pass in the California legislature. Then, and only then, will it go to the US Congress for consideration.

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

I don't favor any split that does not put the entire coast from San Francisco down through Los Angeles into the same state. The rest of the state can be broken up any way one desires as long as that criterion is met.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Uh, why don't you people look at a map of the split before you repeat the same question? Is it that hard?

The answers are there if you spend 30 seconds reading ANY article on the initiative.

What post are you responding to? And who repeated a question? I see only one question in any of the posts above yours and it was the OP. I’m confused by your post.

I read the articles and understand the new proposed boundaries. I don’t care for them. If the boundaries were changed to keep the major urban areas of LA and San Fran in the same state I’d be interested in the discussion. As it sits currently, I think this is a play for more senators.

I can understand the dissatisfaction of folks in CA who have a huge population and only 2 senators, while Montana has a small population and still 2 senators. As a Texan I feel similarly when I look at tiny states in the northeast that get 2 senators each. But them’s the rules, and this appears to be an attempt to circumvent those rules by gerrymandering on a massive scale.

Only with a giant freakin' dirt saw!

quote:

Originally posted by striker1:


I don’t see a downside.

Here's the downside that I see: Northern CA with the Bay Area will be Democrat controlled. California which is LA will be for sure Democrat controlled. Southern CA will have the only hope of being Republican.

So that's 4 Democrat senators to 2 Republican senators. I think that gives Democrats an improved position. 4/104 > 2/100

Piss poor idea that adds more leftist senators. It's not going to happen for a variety of reasons but playing along yields this:

The Bay Area state will be deep deep blue. The Bay Area population base is overwhelmingly left and the northern interior that's red easily countered by the north coast that's more populated and blue.

The LA state will be deep deep blue. There's no counter weight to mass that's LA.

The SD/OC state will be purple. SD/OC is trending in the wrong direction and has been for close to two decades. There's a chance of a mass exodus of right leaning folks to SD/OC if it is a viable option.

Instead of two leftist US senators there will be at least four and likely five. Look at the CA Assembly districts. The lines won't add up perfectly but the votes don't lie. There's a 55-25 split right now. Let that sink in.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:

quote:

Not big enough.

I've contacted the sig office about help on that;
if I knew how to resize the image, it would already by done.

Here ya go.