
SixCalifornias - initiative to create six states - ca98am79
http://sixcalifornias.info/
======
someguyonhn
I find it really odd that anyone would actually think something like this
would work. Firstly, California would have to agree to break itself into 6
states. Even if that happened, those six states, which as far as America is
concerned are still all part of California, would then need to convince
Congress (which are the representatives of the rest of the country with a
disproportionate representation of tiny states) to allow them to join the
Union. Asking Congress to let 5 extra states join the Union is pretty much
asking every state if it's cool that California gets 10 new Senators and 5 new
Congressman. It seems odd that anyone would think Congress would be okay with
that, especially when it doesn't seem to benefit the country at all.

I also think it's funny that they've hired a PR firm[1] that handles "luxury
hotels and resorts"[2], and "Luxury Real Estate Developments and Private
Residence Clubs"[2] to contact for information. I can't think of any
successful, attempting to be grassroots movement, created to try to improve
the lives of others, that hired a PR firm from the start.

[1] - The for press inquiries link at the bottom of their landing page [2] -
The PR company's clients section
[http://www.seahorsepr.com/clients/clients.htm](http://www.seahorsepr.com/clients/clients.htm)

------
belluchan
California is a beautiful state and I never want to see it broken up. Joshua
Trees, Lake Tahoe, the coast of Mendocino, in fact all of Highway 1, Alpine,
Torrey Pines, Russia River, the rocky hills of North County San Diego, Red
Woods and Big Sur, San Francisco, Balboa Park, White Sands, Death Valley, and
on and on. The many missions. The many universities.

Between Hollywood and Silicon Valley, California touches more minds and hearts
than any other place in the world.

This state is amazing, so diverse and rich in culture. This six state
initiative is such an embarrassment. People that advocate something like this
are so out of touch with reality. The New York Times brought this up when they
were referring to the weird rich kids that live in the bay area. I'd support
California becoming it's own sovereign state before I'd support breaking it
up.

~~~
Xdes
Breaking up the state will provide better democratic representation.

~~~
belluchan
I'm not sure how that couldn't be an argument to break up all the large
states. It would just turn the senate into another house of representatives.

And it's a weird way to fix the senate if you wanted it to be fixed. You
should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where
all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all. You
could ask for more senators. And then you will not be breaking up my home
state with these outsider ideas. All of these solutions are about as likely to
pass: nil chance. And I'll fight tooth and nail to keep help keep this state
together.

~~~
Xdes
>I'm not sure how that couldn't be an argument to break up all the large
states

It might be worth considering some kind of population density clause for when
the number of constituents to representatives reaches a ridiculous value.

>You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system
where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all.

This kind of a fix isn't pragmatic and will have a bigger disruption than
breaking up one state. It's not like the geography is going to change because
the lines are redrawn.

>And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas.

Have you considered whether other residents of the state share your view?
Maybe the larger metropolitan areas are alright keeping around the sparser
rural areas, but not the inverse?

------
krupan
I grew up in Washington state and there were periodic calls to divide it
vertically down the middle so that those in the (less populous) eastern
(largely Republican) half of the state could be more independent of the (more
populous, largely Democrat) western half of the state. The kicker was the
proposed name for the new state: Lincoln.

~~~
ds9
To clarify, under that proposal, the "new" state (Lincoln) would be the
eastern one and the western one would be still called Washington.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_%28proposed_Northweste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_%28proposed_Northwestern_state%29)

------
Glyptodon
I completely agree that California should be broken in to n states, where 2 <=
n <= 8.

However, I, and I suspect most people, would draw the lines differently.

In fact, I think most people will agree with the concept of breaking CA into
multiple states, but at the same time I think most Californians would rather
stay as one state than create new states with boundaries that annoy them.

------
smtddr
I already debated this before...
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940199](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940199)

I hope this doesn't pass because I know how the lines will be drawn. The rich,
privileged will be grouped together and will take advantage of the poor.

~~~
javert
The poor have nothing for the rich and privileged to take advantage _of_. It
can only ever happen in the other direction.

~~~
dragonwriter
So, labor is a new concept to you?

------
logfromblammo
Well, there _is_ probably a greater cultural gap between San Francisco and Los
Angeles than exists between Fargo and Little Rock. And I do have a preference
for smaller and more responsive polities.

But with my foil hat on, I realize that this is a play by non-Californians to
manipulate national politics at the expense of the states. I'll only support
it if they do California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New York at the same
time.

~~~
psuter
I find the idea that political and cultural boundaries should align to be a
very sad and unimaginative one.

(Not suggesting you hold an opposite view.)

~~~
sp332
How else could you do it? Tax only the people in favor of infrastructure
improvements and prevent everyone else from using them? Only arrest people
using recreational drugs if they voted against legalization?

~~~
someguyonhn
You could do it the way it is done now. Geographically.

~~~
sp332
What does geography have to do with good government?

~~~
someguyonhn
Geography has everything to do with government. Where you are geographically
determines how you are governed and who governs you.

psuter said, "I find the idea that political and cultural boundaries should
align to be a very sad and unimaginative one." Which I took to mean that
psuter believes realigning CA along cultural or political boundaries (like
saying, "republicans over here, democrats over there") is very sad and
unimaginative.

To which you responded "How else could you do it? Tax only the people in favor
of infrastructure improvements and prevent everyone else from using them? Only
arrest people using recreational drugs if they voted against legalization?"

Which is why I tried to answer your question "How else could you do it?" by
pointing out another way it can be done is, you keep things the way they are
now meaning, you arrest, tax, and govern everyone equally depending on where
they are standing (some things being illegal in some jurisdictions and not in
others).

It seems like there's some sort of breakdown in understanding between the two
of us here.

------
jack-r-abbit
I could see (but not really support) a reasonable argument for making a North
California & South California. It is a pretty big land mass with a large
population. But I think 6 is overkill.

------
Sharlin
Why?

~~~
jaibot
12 Senators, for a start.

~~~
vladd
In Switzerland, some cantons (their equivalent of a state) decided to split.
Before they had 2 votes each in the Council of States; after the split, each
half-canton got 1 vote each -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Half-
can...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Half-cantons) .

It would be fair to split California into 2 and then each half would get 1
senator. Otherwise you might try to play the population card, but other states
would need to approve (or could veto) the process.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It would be fair to split California into 2 and then each half would get 1
> senator.

Er, even split into 6 states with two senators, California would be
_underrepresented_ compared to many other states.

Plus, the one thing that the Constitution expressly prohibits doing even by
Constitutional amendment is changing the distribution of Senators to something
where states would not have equal representation. (You can _take away all the
power of the Senate_ by Constitutional amendment, but you can't stop it from
representing the states equally.)

------
lurkinggrue
This is such a bad idea! Water rights anyone?

~~~
dragonwriter
Yeah, that's one area where this would be the opposite of local control, as it
would essentially federalize the California water issues that aren't already
federal (since interstate compacts must be approved by Congress.)

------
cobolorum
ITT: people who believe there is a difference between Republicans and
Democrats.

