Calexit? Cali could vote on separating into 3 states in Nov (Update: It's happening)

[Maru]

California could vote on separating into 3 states in November
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/04/13/California-could-vote-on-separating-into-3-states-in-November/7421523592013/

California could vote on separating into 3 states in November

April 13 (UPI) -- A venture capitalist billionaire said he received enough signatures to get a measure on California's November ballot that asks voters if they want to split California into three states.

Tim Draper, the chairman of Cal 3, the organization pushing the measure, said they've obtained more than 600,000 signatures -- nearly twice the number needed to get on a state ballot -- and will present them to the California Secretary of State for verification.

"This is an unprecedented show of support on behalf of every corner of California to create three state governments that emphasize representation, responsiveness, reliability and regional identity," Draper said in a statement.

The measure would separate the Golden State into California, which will be the coastal area between Los Angeles and Monterey; Northern California, which will include everything north of Merced, including San Jose and San Francisco; and Southern California, which will include the area west of the new California and south of Los Angeles.

"The separate states are based on existing counties; statehood promotes a sense of community among residents and builds culture," Cal 3 says on its website. " Areas like Sacramento are currently run by powerful special interests like the Teachers' Union. Partitioning the state will help put the power back into the hands of the constituents. If the new state's elected officials aren't meeting the needs of the state's citizens, it will be easier to vote them out of power in the next election."

This isn't the first time Draper, an early investor in Tesla and Skype, has tried to divide California.

Back in 2014, he spearheaded a measure that would have asked voters to divide California into six states, but failed to win enough signatures.

Steven Maviglio, a longtime Democratic Party political consultant who helped lead the effort against Draper's 2014 measure, told the Marin Independent Journal that there's no official opposition group working against Cal 3, but said he and others have discussed it.

Maviglio criticized CAL 3 as a "a colossal waste of time."

"It's completely unworkable and ridiculous," Maviglio said. "It's kind of a shame with so many important issues facing the state that this wacky idea might appear on the ballot."

If voters were to approve Draper's ballot, it would still need to be approved by the state legislature and the U.S. Congress.

:joker:

[Nicky91]

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

:fist:

[user104658]

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

:fist:

:think: Nicky I think they would still all be part of the United States... just as three separate states instead of one.

[user104658]

I'd be lying if I said I'd looked into this at all but I actually am in favour of small, self-governed regions (which are then part of a larger country) as a general rule. I fully believe that doing so does give more of a voice to each individual citizen.

I personally think that the best thing for England, for example, would be to devolve regions and allow each to govern the day-to-day issues themselves with only the biggest national-and-international scale issues left to Westminster. So for example... you'd have a devolved City of London, a devolved Yorkshire, Lancashire, etc etc.

[Twosugars]

city of london? what about city of westminster or the rest of london? ;-)

[user104658]

city of london? what about city of westminster or the rest of london? ;-)

Well... in my dystopia, it would be London run as a city-state, and the Westminster government would be located IN London as a separate entity, but would not actually run London.

[Twosugars]

yeah, bring back city states! london would be awesome

ps. city of london is just the square mile, I queried coz wasn't sure what you meant re. london.

[Nicky91]

:think: Nicky I think they would still all be part of the United States... just as three separate states instead of one.

yeah, btw i find this California issue, a bit similar to what Catalonia wants to be independent from Spain

[Oliver_W]

Well... in my dystopia, it would be London run as a city-state, and the Westminster government would be located IN London as a separate entity, but would not actually run London.

Would all the crappy parts of London, like the east and south, be included in the city state?

[user104658]

Would all the crappy parts of London, like the east and south, be included in the city state?

Yes

[Maru]

I'd be lying if I said I'd looked into this at all but I actually am in favour of small, self-governed regions (which are then part of a larger country) as a general rule. I fully believe that doing so does give more of a voice to each individual citizen.

I personally think that the best thing for England, for example, would be to devolve regions and allow each to govern the day-to-day issues themselves with only the biggest national-and-international scale issues left to Westminster. So for example... you'd have a devolved City of London, a devolved Yorkshire, Lancashire, etc etc.

You mean like federalism? That is how the US is set up now.

[hijaxers]

yeah, bring back city states! london would be awesome

ps. city of london is just the square mile, I queried coz wasn't sure what you meant re. london.

Is it not a square mile that dictates everything ?

[hijaxers]

California is huge i think maybe this would be a good thing (for the people)

[Maru]

California is huge i think maybe this would be a good thing (for the people)

https://media.giphy.com/media/MPloWnDQLi6fC/giphy.gif

:laugh:

[Underscore]

Wouldn't that be stupid? I mean the parts people want to supposedly break away from is the LA part or whatever and won't that generate the most money for the state?

[Maru]

It's going to be interesting to see how they handle resource mgmt in a state like CA if they split it up. Given the area is incredibly drought prone and natural disasters are regular.

There are some states in the US that I could see be worth merging in order to pool their resources.

[Smithy]

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

:fist:

Jfc

[Underscore]

Jfc

[2]

[Maru]

Wouldn't that be stupid? I mean the parts people want to supposedly break away from is the LA part or whatever and won't that generate the most money for the state?

There are other areas of economic influence in CA. San Francisco would be in the northern state, for example. It looks like they're going for borderlines that evenly split the population.

https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Cal-3.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/vdmYmFK.jpg

Three Californias? Calexit effort joined by new state-splitting plan
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article168118272.html

His newest measure, filed Friday, says the “political representation of California’s diverse population and economies has rendered the state nearly ungovernable.”

[arista]

I love California.

[Mitchell]

Thought Cal and Daniel-X were getting a divorce for a min

[Maru]

I love California.

Which one? :laugh: There's going to be 3 Californias now...

[Maru]

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/proposal-split-california-three-states-makes-november-ballot-085603479--abc-news-topstories.html

Proposal to split California into three states makes November ballot

California residents will get a chance to vote on a measure to divide the Golden State into three separate states, election officials said Tuesday.

Proponents of the CAL 3 initiative submitted more than 402,468 valid signatures as of Tuesday, making it eligible for the Nov. 6 general election ballot, according to the California Secretary of State’s office.

The office did not say exactly how many total signatures were submitted, but backers said the petition drew more than 600,000 from residents across the state’s 58 counties, dwarfing the 365,000 signatures required to qualify for the ballot.

Adding the initiative to the ballot would be the first step in a long process that would ultimately require approval from Congress.

https://i.imgur.com/F5bwU1E.jpg

The proposal, led by venture capitalist Tim Draper, would split the country’s most populous state into three new states of near-equal population: Northern California, California and Southern California, according to the proposal.

Northern California would include cities between the Bay Area and the Oregon border. Southern California would begin in Fresno and cover most of the southern state. The "new" California would cover Los Angeles County and much of the coast below San Francisco Bay, the proposal said.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla will certify the initiative as qualified for the November ballot on June 28, his office said Tuesday.

Draper proposed similar measures in 2012 and 2014, but those efforts failed after election officials invalidated many of the signatures collected.

“The unanimous support for CAL 3 from all 58 of California’s counties to reach this unprecedented milestone in the legislative process is the signal that across California, we are united behind CAL 3 to create a brighter future for everyone,” Draper said in a statement in April after the signatures were collected.

Draper says the spilt would create three separate governments, boost education and infrastructure, and lower taxes, but critics claim it could do more harm than good.

“It’s not like you’re starting from scratch, you have to blow up everything,” Steven Maviglio, who helped defeat Draper’s previous effort, told local reporters earlier this year. “There are so many fundamentally flawed aspects to this.”

[Oliver_W]

Which one? :laugh: There's going to be 3 Californias now...

Northern Cal will be the best.

[Maru]

Northern Cal will be the best.

My great aunt will be in NoCal :love:

[Jason.]

I'm going to California in the summer.

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

[Maru]

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.

[bots]

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

[Mystic Mock]

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

It definitely has a sinister approach to it I agree.

[Scarlett.]

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

:fist:

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

[user104658]

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?

[user104658]

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]

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]

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


Yes It is.
Wise Dezzy.

[Braden]

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]

And what will become of me?

Not another leaving thread :bawling:

[Braden]

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]

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)

https://i.imgur.com/FSeED2B.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/7hWXAhC.jpg

[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-watch/392488-three-californias-plan-would-give-dems-more-seats

‘Three Californias’ plan would give Dems more seats
https://i.imgur.com/LNkogUj.jpg

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]

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

:fist:

:facepalm: