
Proposal to split California into six states, Silicon Valley one of them - K-Wall
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/15/silicon-valley-is-one-step-closer-to-being-its-own-state-no-really/
======
pdkl95
Let me guess: it's another example of GOP wishful-thinking, where it just
happens to gerrymander away a lot of CA's electoral votes?

/me checks article and looks at map

Yep. The only section that would reliably vote against the GOP would be
"silicon valley" due to it being mostly urban areas. The Sacramento and urban
LA areas are questionable.

While (current) CA as been a reliable block of electoral votes votes for some
time, it there the state has a lot more "rural voters" than most people
expect.

Precinct heat map for 2008 Obama/McCain:

[http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4362/statewidevote.gif](http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4362/statewidevote.gif)

The same map skewed so area is proportional to #votes cast. The giant blue
area on the left is roughly the "silicon valley" subdivision, and LA 3 of the
eastern subdivisions are mostly the lighter-blue/lighter-read areas.

[http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3248/statewidevoteadjustedb...](http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3248/statewidevoteadjustedbi.gif)

It's not like it would happen anyway. Does LA _really_ want to start paying us
in the norther half of the state for all the water we would then be
"exporting"? Not going to happen.

edit: fixed URL

~~~
malandrew
How is that skewed, second map generated?

------
peterwwillis
We can't even get the District of Columbia recognized as a state so people who
live there can have congressional representation. And this guy thinks they're
gonna make SIX NEW states just for shits and giggles?

~~~
esrauch
You think there is a problem that DC is underrepresented in the federal
government?

~~~
peterwwillis
The District itself is not "underrepresented", because the whole point of
elected officials is to represent _people_ , not arbitrary collections of
land. There are more people living in DC than in Wyoming and Vermont, in a
much smaller space.

Unlike residents of U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico or Guam, which also
have non-voting delegates, D.C. residents are subject to all U.S. federal
taxes. In the financial year 2012, D.C. residents and businesses paid $20.7
billion in federal taxes; more than the taxes collected from 19 states and
_the highest federal taxes per capita_.

So in addition to paying the federal tax in the nation, the people who live
there are not allowed to determine how those funds are allocated or used. Some
other fun restrictions on the District include the President alone assigns the
judges for the local courts. It also takes an act of congress to do things
like change the city's budget. Basically, if the district wanted to change how
its trash was collected, it has to be approved by Congress.

The District did not even have an elected city government until the passage by
Congress of the Home Rule Act of 1973. Besides lacking representation in
Congress, the city is also deprived of the ability to have ultimate authority
over how to spend the money it collects. Every law passed by the DC Council
and signed by the mayor needs congressional approval. That includes the
budget, even though DC residents and businesses provide a majority of the
funds. This means that the Congress can modify DC’s budget any way it wants,
even the portion of DC’s budget supported with the city’s own tax dollars.

So, no, the people who live in the District are not underrepresented in the
federal government that determines how their local government functions. They
are simply _not represented at all._ But thank you for the snark.

~~~
seanflyon
I wouldn't say that a non-voting member of the house is quite the same as "not
represented at all"

------
alekratz
This will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever happen. Jefferson
has been a proposed state (southern Oregon + northern California) for decades.
That, combined with the process of creating a state, annexing the correct
territory, etc. It's not going to happen. Ever.

~~~
NickWarner775
While we're at it why don't we unite North and South Dakota to form one
universal "Dakota"? What about the glorious state of "Carolina"? It's very
irritating that the conversation always seems to be about California.
California shouldn't be divided just because different regions offer different
things.

