[Jason.]

I'm going to California in the summer.

I'm not here for this though, 52 states is a weird number.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Jason.

I'm going to California in the summer.

I'm not here for this though, 52 states is a weird number.

So is 51... PR could become a state in the US at some point perhaps.

[Tom4784]

Bit of a blatant attempt of manipulating the voter base tbh.

[bitontheslide]

if its what the people want, why shouldn't it be split up

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Bit of a blatant attempt of manipulating the voter base tbh.

It definitely has a sinister approach to it I agree.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

destroy California then, pathetic state being against our great president trump

You do then realise it would be three states against Trump instead of one?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Bit of a blatant attempt of manipulating the voter base tbh.

It is and isn't, I wouldn't call it manipulation exactly. As we have seen, with the way things stand currently, smaller states with low populations have a disproportionate power to affect the overall vote, i.e., the ridiculous situation where the losing party can get more of the popular vote than the winning party. The solution to accuratly remedy that effect is to split the states that have large populations into smaller areas, to try to ensure that the population is represented more accurately overall.

Ideally they would split the entire electorate into regions of roughly equal population.

[Braden]

I may sound stupid here, but surely if the state is split into three parts then the electoral system will still distribute the same number of points altogether? Unless the outrage is because there’s a certain area of California that’s red-leaning?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Braden

I may sound stupid here, but surely if the state is split into three parts then the electoral system will still distribute the same number of points altogether? Unless the outrage is because there’s a certain area of California that’s red-leaning?

It makes an absolutely huge difference in the Senate from what I understand.

And even in presidential elections, voting "power" is skewed in favour of smaller states, e.g. I know Alaska and South Dakota have large voting power despite being two of the smallest states by population.

[Braden]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It makes an absolutely huge difference in the Senate from what I understand.

And even in presidential elections, voting "power" is skewed in favour of smaller states, e.g. I know Alaska and South Dakota have large voting power despite being two of the smallest states by population.

That's interesting. It still baffles me how presidential elections work over in the States, tbh.

What are the reasons for states like Alaska and South Dakota having large voting power? I always presumed points worked in proportion to state population.

[Tom4784]

It gives California 6 senators instead of 2 which is huge. I'm not sure what the party politics are on this issue but I'd be surprised if the Democrats weren't pushing hard for it since they would be all but guaranteed 4 of those senators.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Bit of a blatant attempt of manipulating the voter base tbh.

Yes It is.
Wise Dezzy.

[Braden]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It gives California 6 senators instead of 2 which is huge. I'm not sure what the party politics are on this issue but I'd be surprised if the Democrats weren't pushing hard for it since they would be all but guaranteed 4 of those senators.

Really? That’s big. I’m gonna look forward to seeing what happens with this.

[Maru]

The amount of electoral votes is based on population (ie. Census data). Alaska only has 3, whereas Texas has 38... the system is actually quite fair, because voting power is based on the amount of ppl... sostates can decide how those votes are decided... usually county-by-county... whereas if we went by individual votes, then states with large populations would have more voting power than states w smaller pops.. so their voice matters... Hillary didnt win bc she didnt campaign enough in Midwest iirc, so completely ignored that part of the electorate... anyway, this is the reason for the system we have, is to give states equal voice in elections. It would be easy to tip elections otherwise by catering to large pop areas...

[Maru]

Also they are splitting CA evenly in such a way the new states will have equal populations just about, so same amount of electoral in each... I think they worked it out where each had a major city....

[Cal.]

And what will become of me?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Cal.

And what will become of me?

Not another leaving thread

[Braden]

Originally Posted by Maru

The amount of electoral votes is based on population (ie. Census data). Alaska only has 3, whereas Texas has 38... the system is actually quite fair, because voting power is based on the amount of ppl... sostates can decide how those votes are decided... usually county-by-county... whereas if we went by individual votes, then states with large populations would have more voting power than states w smaller pops.. so their voice matters... Hillary didnt win bc she didnt campaign enough in Midwest iirc, so completely ignored that part of the electorate... anyway, this is the reason for the system we have, is to give states equal voice in elections. It would be easy to tip elections otherwise by catering to large pop areas...

I'd be interested to know what you think of people who find the electoral college outdated? A lot of people demand for the popular vote to be the ideal system, but that seems to be the answer when people are unhappy with the final result and the popular vote puts one of the candidates ahead despite the other winning. The electoral college does seem the fairest way to structure it, though.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Braden

I'd be interested to know what you think of people who find the electoral college outdated? A lot of people demand for the popular vote to be the ideal system, but that seems to be the answer when people are unhappy with the final result and the popular vote puts one of the candidates ahead despite the other winning. The electoral college does seem the fairest way to structure it, though.

My experience in my short life...

There's still a lot of people here even who don't know or don't understand how a lot of our political system works. So when they form an opinion on it, it's because they've recently heard their candidate or representative had lost and so they may want to blame it when they look into what states were lost/won, etc... so they may only just form that opinion in the moment, without knowing why it works the way it does. I think most people who do the reading and learn why we still use it, they either become less bitter or they appreciate it... whether they're for it or not then is a matter of personal preference I guess.

I think objectively, most people can argue that it's inconsistent to allow states to decide how their electoral votes are automatically decided. However, because our system is based strongly on Federalism (most laws/regulations, etc are handled on a state/local level)... then they may take issue with the fact that one state may go by a count-by-county popular vote, or they may just decide to go with the popular vote of the entire state... and because that's inconsistent, they may think there's a political prejudice there by those authorities.

The way I see it, the local populations choose their representatives by popular vote. So they are deciding which way they want the system to lean, how they want it to work... so if those representatives or those commissioners decide they want to handle the electoral votes a particular way, then it's the way the people have voted it should be.

Basically, every state does it's own thing and implements the laws/regulations very differently... and this is how people who support Federalism feel about the system.

However, someone who is not into federalism so much, aka a Democrat (see: name), they may prefer everything be handled by popular vote and that oversight should be at the highest level (national). They believe more strongly the majority should rule.

Whereas a Republican, supports the US remaining a Republic (i.e. supporting a constitution), and so they would be fine with it operating similar to a democracy, but they prefer that we have a system in place to protect minorities (smaller groups in the gen pop, like "lesser" states)... i.e. supports electoral college.

Here are the differences in a little bit more detail: (edit)

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

[Maru]

I wouldn't have figured this. It makes sense though, since all 3 Californias would have major metros in them. A vast majority of the metros in the US are Democratic... though rural areas tend to be more red in general here. Maryland was like that.

Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-wa...ems-more-seats

‘Three Californias’ plan would give Dems more seats

A proposal to split the nation’s most populous state into three smaller states would give Democrats a huge boost in the perpetual battle for control of the United States Senate — likely dooming the plan even before voters have a chance to weigh in.

California voters will vote this November on the ballot measure, backed by tech billionaire and venture capitalist Tim Draper. If the measure passes, Congress would have a year to allow the state to split up into three separate states — one centered around Los Angeles, another in Northern California that includes the Bay Area and Sacramento, and a third in Southern California that would include the Central Valley and San Diego.

Democrats have easily won California’s electoral votes in recent years. George H.W. Bush was the last Republican to win the state at the presidential level, and Republicans haven’t won a Senate seat in California since Pete Wilson won reelection in 1988.

But if Democrats are leery of splitting California’s 55 electoral votes, recent election results show the three new states all would have voted for Democratic presidential nominees Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Data compiled by Ballotpedia, the political analysis firm, found Clinton would have won more than 60 percent of the vote in both California — the Los Angeles-based state — and Northern California. She would have won almost 52 percent of the vote in Southern California, while President Trump would have taken 42 percent.

Obama would have won all three states in 2012 and 2008, though he would have won the San Diego-based Southern California state by just 27,000 votes over Mitt Romney in 2012, a margin of just six-tenths of a percentage point.

That means Democrats would have earned 59 electoral votes — four more than they did in 2016, because every state gets two more electoral votes than the number of representatives it sends to Congress — though a third of those votes would have been far more competitive than they are at present.

“All three of them have voted for Democratic candidates the past three presidential elections. Southern California, however, has been much more competitive,” said Ryan Byrne, a Ballotpedia analyst who crunched the data.

Registered Democrats would outnumber Republicans in all three states, according to data from the California secretary of state’s office. The margin is closest in Southern California, where Democrats would enjoy about a 200,000-voter advantage.

The certain benefit for Democrats would be in the battle for control of the U.S. Senate. The heavily Democratic tilt of both the Los Angeles-based and San Francisco-based states would almost certainly mean at least four Senate seats would be firmly in Democratic control, and the other two would be competitive.

Carving up the state would be such a gamble for both parties that the plan would face serious hurdles in Congress, Byrne said. Both parties have something significant to lose, which means both parties have an incentive to oppose changing the status quo.

“Would the US Congress approve this? That’s the part there’s a lot more doubt around,” he said. “For the Democrats, there’s the potential for losing electoral votes. For Republicans, there’s likely at least two more Senate seats, and two more that would be competitive.”

Draper, who earlier pushed to split California into six states, says California is so big it has become ungovernable and that three separate states would become more manageable.

But it’s not even clear if Draper’s measure would pass muster with the courts. Only state legislatures can petition Congress to create new states. And while the ballot measure purports to act as a proxy for the legislature, it would almost certainly be challenged if it were to pass in November.

The state Legislative Analyst’s Office said the legislature might still have to sign off on the plan before it goes to Congress, even if voters approve the initiative.

History is not kind to efforts to divide California, or any other state. Since becoming a state in 1850, there have been more than 200 petitions, movements or legislative efforts to split California. Northern rural counties have tried to carve-out a conservative bastion. Southern counties have tried to make a home for themselves.

The legislature actually passed, and Gov. John Weller signed, a measure in 1859 to create a new Territory of Colorado. But as the Civil War loomed, Congress never took up the proposal.

And some liberals even want the entire state to separate itself from the United States. Supporters of a so-called Calexit campaign gathered more than half a million signatures to qualify for November’s ballot.

The last time any state split itself in two came in 1863, when rural counties that backed the Union took West Virginia out of Virginia.

[Maru]

It would also require 2/3 of the vote in order to pass and that is no small feat.

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

destroy California then, pathetic state being against our great president trump