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

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

:joker:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Yes

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

Is it not a square mile that dictates everything ?

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

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

:laugh:

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?

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.

Jfc

[2]

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.

I love California.

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

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

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/proposal-s...opstories.html

Northern Cal will be the best.

My great aunt will be in NoCal :love:

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.

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

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

It definitely has a sinister approach to it I agree.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes It is.
Wise Dezzy.

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

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...

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....