
Tim Draper Wants To Split California, Turn Silicon Valley Into Its Own State - ssclafani
http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/tim-draper-six-californias-secede-silicon-valley-ballot-initiative/
======
carsongross
I'll go you one further, Mr. Draper: California should be split up into six
_countries_.

The plain fact is that the notion of "consent of the governed" is preposterous
in any culturally diverse environment of more than a few million people.

Reasonable people wish to live differently, with different forms and amounts
of government, religion, social norms, etc. So be it.

~~~
yetanotherphd
The only reason California is so diverse is because of immigration, and so
while what you say makes sense, it would change nothing in the long run unless
it was accompanied by stricter immigration restrictions.

Otherwise these 6 new countries would soon be just as diverse as California is
now.

~~~
carsongross
Each new country, of course, would be able to set their immigration
restrictions and loosely or as tightly as they wished. And, hey, this might
actually reflect _the preferences of their citizens_ rather than the
preferences of some remote elites.

It's crazy talk, I know.

~~~
smtddr
Yes, crazy and wrong. Let me tell you how this is going to go. A bunch of
wealthy people, of limited diversity, will make their own country and exploit
all the poorer ones. I would have no problem with your plan if you can assure
me that the wealthier country doesn't bully, pollute, wage wars or otherwise
compromise the people or natural resources the poorer countries nearby.

~~~
carsongross
Nah, sane and correct.

Massive super-states: bulwarks of peace, clean living and respect for both the
individual and their local cultural groups... Sure, man. Whatever.

At least give it a chance in your brain: I know it doesn't fit the classic
left/right divide, but would a continent of Switzerlands of varying cultures
be that bad? Worse than todays USG?

~~~
smtddr
I can assure you that the rich will group themselves away from the poor. So, I
repeat: If you can assure me the wealthy won't take advantage of the poor,
then I'm fine. But you can't assure me that. It's going to end up like this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oblongs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oblongs)

>> _The series focuses on the antics of a family who live in a poor valley
community and, as a result of pollution and radiation exposure, are all
disabled or deformed. The pollution is the direct result of the lavish
lifestyle of the rich community known as "The Hills", whose residents exploit
and harm the valley residents with absolutely no regard for their safety or
well-being.

Social commentary

Many reviewers and fans see the series as a commentary on social
stratification. While the residents of the Hills live in wealth and
economically dominate those in the Valley, there is no rallying cry for wealth
redistribution or fairer working conditions._

------
Aloisius
As a 4th generation native, I've been hearing ideas such as these since I was
a kid. I can't tell you how many times the idea of how easy it would be to
secede from the rest of the US was brought up, but this new one seems to take
the crazy a little more public.

I'm a bit confused as to why in 30 years, anyone from "Silicon Valley" would
give a damn about what those people from "West California" thought or why the
Senators from West California would vote to get a new bridge in Silicon Valley
for instance. This wouldn't create six Californias, it would dilute the power
of California by breaking it up. Nor do I understand why the Federal
government would allow such an obvious ploy to increase Senate representation.

I'm actually kind of surprised, given the almost Texas-level pride (minus the
Texas-sized ego) Californians can have for our state that Draper would propose
such a thing.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Yes, these ideas are evergreen in California. The "Jefferson" one in
particular comes up constantly. There's only a tiny problem: all of
"Jefferson" would contain a tiny (fewer than a million) population, would have
essentially no economy other than timber and tourism, and currently runs an
ENORMOUS budget deficit when considered by itself because the negligible
economic activity produced by the timber industry wouldn't even pay for
filling the potholes in the 1000s of miles of highways in the region, much
less for fixing the bridges and staffing the rural fire departments and
whatnot.

Of course the idea can't die because 1) rural poor people are particularly
susceptible to "stabbed in the back" propaganda about how liberals are robbing
them blind, and 2) incumbent timber owners are all too happy to peddle such
propaganda because all they want is to clearcut the remainder of California's
forests without interference from pesky laws.

------
crazygringo
Interesting, states _have_ been created in the past via splitting. Maine out
of Mass., both W. Va and Kentucky out of Virginia, and Vermont from NY+NH,
according to Wikipedia. [1] "Any such creation [must] be approved by the
legislature of the affected state(s), as well as the United States Congress."
[1]

Also according to Wikipedia, "Throughout the state's history, there have been
more than 220 attempts to divide California into multiple states including at
least 27 serious proposals." [2]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_partition_pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_partition_proposals)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_Cali...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California)

~~~
bilbo0s
"Any such creation [must] be approved by the legislature of the affected
state(s), as well as the United States Congress."

Not strictly true.

It certainly wasn't the case for the West Virginians.

~~~
InclinedPlane
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._West_Virginia)

------
kylelibra
The reasons:

1\. It is about time California was properly represented with Senators in
Washington. Now our number of Senators per person will be about average.

2\. Competition is good, monopolies are bad. This initiative encourages more
competition and less monopolistic power. Like all competitive systems, costs
will be lower and service will be better.

3\. Each new state can start fresh. From a new crowd sourced state flower to a
more relevant constitution.

4\. Decisions can be more relevant to the population. The regulations in one
new state are not appropriate for another.

5\. Individuals can move between states more freely.

~~~
smacktoward
_> It is about time California was properly represented with Senators in
Washington. Now our number of Senators per person will be about average._

On the other hand, California gains an _enormous_ amount of power every four
years due to the huge number of electoral college votes it commands. No other
single state has anything like California's 55 electoral votes; the next
closest is Texas, which has just 38.

In other words, California, all by itself, gets a candidate 20% of the way to
the magic 270 votes needed to win the Presidency. This makes it very hard for
any serious candidate to ignore or otherwise bypass.

Splitting California up would dilute this power, allowing candidates to write
off parts it more easily. It would be interesting to take the 2012 election
results and map them to Draper's proposed new states to see how those "states"
would have voted, had they existed then.

~~~
prostoalex
> On the other hand, California gains an enormous amount of power every four
> years due to the huge number of electoral college votes it commands.

Since it consistently goes blue, national campaigns use California for token
speeches, mainly for fundraising purposes in Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Yeah, California only matters for primaries, and for fundraisers.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Hasn't California's primary been in like freaking June.

------
scarmig
I sort of like this idea, but in all honesty, I think the time for
secessionist movements has passed. That's not a snarky comment about the Civil
War--it just seems to me that the idea of having a sovereign state with a
monopoly of force over some geographic terrain seems outmoded to me.

China Mieville wrote a novel a couple years back, _The City and the City_ ,
that is exactly the type of thing I want to see more of: pushing the
boundaries of what we consider a plausible political entity. In it, there's
one city but two governments that are both sovereign within its limits, and
people choose to be part of one or another. I'm also reminded of the
historical political mandalas of Southeast Asia--one city state might
simultaneously be a client of two other states.

Is either the future? Of course not. But my point is that our vision of what
governments have to look like is sadly limited, and our myopia has caused us
to see the Eurocentric romantic state nationalism of the past two centuries as
the only way for a civilization to exist. Think bigger, folks! (Or smaller, as
the case may be.)

------
shawnee_
Would California's perpetual budget problems be better solved by localizing
the resources of a state government to be more accessible? Probably. Clearly
California is (and has been for a long time) too big for its shoes, as
evidenced by its complete idiocy when it comes to passing budgets that do what
they're supposed to do. But, six states might be pushing things a bit.
Economies of scale that can be had at a state level shouldn't be discounted
entirely.

It would be interesting to see what would happen with things like:

    
    
      - state income tax (WA, for example, has none);
      - sales tax (OR, for example, has none);
      - minimum wage;
      - driver's license expiration periods (AZ only makes you visit the DMV once every 12 years to get a new pic & check vision)
      - gambling laws (because Nevada's not quite close enough for some people); 
      - fruit checkpoints at the state line(s);
      - all the case law RE: California Supreme Court rulings -- opening this up for new precedents would be madness

~~~
Aloisius
_Would California 's perpetual budget problems be better solved_

California has a budget surplus.

A pretty large one in fact: $5.6 billion surplus by June 2015, with annual
surpluses reaching $8.3 billion by the 2016-17 budget year.

~~~
gojomo
I'll believe numbers for 2015-2017 when they arrive. What's the surplus for
2013?

~~~
Aloisius
It is on track to be about $851 million (the fiscal year ends June 30th)

------
rlt
I, for one, am glad California has still has some less liberal areas to keep
it in line.

~~~
smtddr
Seriously. As left as I am, this is crazy talk. SV can't just be its own
state. This Silicon-valley-arrogance is out of control. They think they have
it all figured out and know better than generations of wisdom before them.
What if everyone who didn't like a few things decides to just not co-operate
and run off? So now SV is its own state. San Francisco is going to be part of
this state and it already has gentrification-type issues. What if those people
get mad and wanna make their own state too? A state where the non-techs can
keep their apartments and not be displaced by techies. So, now where do the
techies live?

------
nostromo
This proposal is clever in that it greatly increases the (former) state's
power in the senate, but does so by splitting the state's senators 50/50
between both parties.

That would net republicans 2 more senators than they have today -- so if the
state passes it, I imagine the republicans in congress might actually allow it
to happen.

This would change the dynamic for presidential elections dramatically (thanks
to our byzantine way of selecting a president); pulling away several "secure"
democratic votes to republicans. I believe republicans already have a
electoral vote per capita advantage, as seen in the 2000 election.

Also, a 55 star flag doesn't look so terrible:
[http://i.imgur.com/5yKPsUR.png](http://i.imgur.com/5yKPsUR.png)

------
hristov
Only his first point (about getting a fair number of senators) makes sense.
Senate representation is a big problem for our country. Things have gotten to
the point where many small states can flat out extort the US population as a
whole. (Our terrible corn based ethanol legislation is an example of such
extortion.)

Unfortunately, I do not think splitting CA will get us more senators. I am
pretty sure that additional states have to be approved on the federal level.
And considering Washington, DC. still to this day does not have Senate
representation, I really really doubt the federal government would allow
California to have 10 more senators.

~~~
prewett
The Senate representation is by design, so that large states cannot bully the
small ones. Big states get more leverage in the House of Representatives and
the smaller states are on equal footing with the larger states in the Senate.
I think it is a good system.

What would you have the small states do, anyway? The representatives are
acting in the interest of their constituents, which is what they are supposed
to do. How many corn-producing states are there? More than the 25 states
needed for a majority in the Senate? Really? Even so, how did it get past the
House? If the representatives of the populous extorted states can't see how
the corn legislation is bad, maybe those other states need better
representation. Maybe California even supported it, since they are all
environmentally-conscious (even if not always well-informed). Or maybe it is
not actually bad legislation: Wikipedia [1] seems to claim that ethanol in
gasoline replaces a harmful chemical that was polluting groundwater, but that
ethanol producers were having problems staying afloat in the Panic of 2008-9.

The government was well-designed, please don't try to "fix" it. Instead, let's
eliminate special interests buying harmful legislation, which is the real
problem.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States)

------
tlrobinson
See also: Jefferson (proposed Pacific state)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_\(proposed_Pacific_state\))

edit: oh, Jefferson is actually the name of the proposed northern state.

------
heurist
Maybe some of the US's underrepresented territories should get a shot at
statehood first.

------
ChristianMarks
"Competition is good, monopolies are bad" is a blanket statement about one
mechanism of cooperative benefit, gain from trade in competitive markets,
against another mechanism of cooperative benefit, namely economies of scale.
It is not self evident at all that competition is always good: there are
necessarily diminishing returns along all the dimensions of cooperative
benefit, and they trade off against each other non-linearly. Risk pools
benefit from economies of scale. Breaking up CA requires an analysis of the
social services affected. This is much, much more involved than the proposal
indicates.

------
ChrisNorstrom
Splitting CA into 2 different states (3 at most) would be more realistic but 6
is just over doing it. It feels like micro-fragmentation (see Europe).

The author is terrible at selling the idea. Where's the data? Where's the maps
showing political segregation and population? Why don't they talk about how CA
has terrible public schools, a massive jail population, and inefficient public
transportation? And how splitting it up into separate states would allow
different and unique ideas to compete and be tried instead of one set of rules
being forced on an entire state of 38 million people.

------
warmwaffles
This will never happen. Those in power will not allow it.

~~~
jds375
Completely true. But it is an interesting thought experiment and provides some
insight into our current system and some changes we may want to make.

~~~
alttab
We would have to change the American flag. Think about that for a second.
There won't be citizen driven state changes in America, ever, without some
form of revolt.

~~~
ghshephard
The American flag has changed 26 times since 1777, the most recently in 1960
when Hawaii's star was added. There are many challenges to breaking up
California, "changing the American Flag" is one of the less significant
changes.

------
beachstartup
i have an intimate, decades-long knowledge of both northern and southern
california, and let me tell you, they're basically the same thing.

anyone who tells you otherwise probably hasn't spent much time in _both_. the
real differences run east-west, not north-south.

~~~
gojomo
I think the proposed splits recognize this: of the 6, only the northernmost
two are horizontal bands; the other frous are east-west splits.

I have a hunch the LA-to-Orange-County split might be awkward, or the meshing
of three states in the Contra Costa-Sacramento-San Joaquin area. And though
Alameda and Contra Costa might be comfortable with SF-San Mateo-Santa Clara-
Santa Cruz-Monterrey-San Benito, they'd hate being in a state _called_
'Silicon Valley.

------
blackjack48
I like the general idea, but the current proposal isn't going to get much
support because it splits the Bay Area in half. Doing that fails to recognize
that a significant portion of people commute from the North Bay into the city.
Not to mention that numerous agencies have been established to coordinate
planning and environmental efforts in the area (ABAG, MTC, BART, and BAAQMD to
name a few.)

I think the proposal would be stronger as a four-state solution:

1) a state similar to the proposed "Jefferson" state

2) the greater Bay Area/Monterey/Sacramento area

3) Central Valley & the south half of the Sierra Nevadas

4) SLO/SB/SoCal

------
vonskippy
Just another whiny rich person trying to avoid paying their fair share of
taxes.

------
protomyth
The whole water management is going to be very interesting under such a plan.
Might be good for agriculture and force a move to desalination plants.

------
dicemoose
Question: If this were to actually pass in the State of California, would the
only thing necessary after that be for the US Congress to accept six new
states into the Union?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#New_states_and_federal_property)

~~~
dragonwriter
> If this were to actually pass in the State of California, would the only
> thing necessary after that be for the US Congress to accept six new states
> into the Union?

Probably not; even if the ballot measure passed it would still probably have
to pass the state legislature: the US Constitution requires consent of the
State Legislature (not just "the State") to form new states from the territory
of existing states, and in other circumstances (the similar restriction
regarding rules for choosing Presidential electors), ISTR that the federal
courts have looked specifically to the Legislature.

------
johnpowell
All of you that want to "disrupt" (I loathe that word) should just buy a boat
and carry on without the rules and regulations. Uber could be a venture-funded
startup and Transportation Network Company based in San Francisco, California
that makes a mobile application that connects passengers with drivers of
vehicles for hire and ridesharing services on a boat.

------
mike_herrera
I dislike this solution.

Draper's concerns mainly reference representation and regulation. Both of
which can be achieved by (1) amending the CA and US Constitutions, and (2)
delegating more power to the existing counties.

The waste inherent to operating five additional state governments, just to
circumvent the status quo, does not seem appropriate.

------
sciguy77
While I think this idea is interesting I can't see it happening in our
lifetimes.

------
rdl
What federal approval would be needed for this?

It would be interesting if California added some regional government level
between state and county, then devolved almost all state power to that level,
in advance of any formal breakup.

~~~
dragonwriter
> What federal approval would be needed for this?

Yes, by Congress.

> It would be interesting if California added some regional government level
> between state and county, then devolved almost all state power to that level

California has been progressively devolving state powers directly to counties
for many years, constrained largely by things that are tied to federal funding
streams that require a single state agency to be responsible for the federal
funding and to perform certain functions with regard to the statewide program.

------
MyNameIsMK
Can someone please answer what problem is being solved here?

------
shobhitverma
Hunger games ?

------
hydralist
or "tim draper and i want your attention"

