
Calexit: The “Bad Boys of Brexit” throw their weight behind move to split state - cagey
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/26/the-bad-boys-of-brexit-throw-their-weight-behind-calexit/
======
tabeth
What exactly would be the advantage of Calexit?

1\. Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future.
This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy.

2\. The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states
consider following California. I believe this to be true because let's face
it, there are certain states that subsidize others. This has to be true, given
the discrepancies of wealth between them.

3\. Arguably much of the success of the United States comes from the cohesion
between the states, hence the name. To leave the United States undermines its
very existence.

Am I missing something?

EDIT: Also, more practically, would California even afford to maintain its
current existence without the many subsidies it presumably receives as part of
its membership of the US?

~~~
rorykoehler
I don't understand how it would undermine democracy. Can you explain please?
Surely it would just redraw the lines and democracy would continue.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
In a working democracy, "my side lost" means reformulating until the next
election. When you throw in "redraw boundaries," it adds epicycles [1].

This is workable--if undesirable--at lower levels, _e.g._ Congressional
districts [2]. It falls apart at the scales of Constitutional quantums, _i.e._
branches of the federal government and states. If your group can double its
exposure in the Senate, why can't mine?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-
say...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-says-texas-
congressional-districts-gerrymandered-to-hurt-
minorities/2017/03/11/97b6ab0a-0685-11e7-b9fa-ed727b644a0b_story.html)

~~~
Old_Thrashbarg
The key words being "in a working democracy".

I think the US has poor democracy. The electoral college means my vote here in
California doesn't matter (I typically don't participate in the charade of the
presidential election although I do vote in other races, mostly state wide).
Same for a Texan's vote.

I think Brexit was stupid so I'm hesitant to support Calexit, but I think the
unfair system definitely fuels the flames. I have to admit it would be nice to
live in a country where my vote would count no matter where in the country I'm
from.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _key words being "in a working democracy"_

We don't have a great democracy. But it's a democracy. (If you can
realistically discuss seceding, you're in a free country.)

Perhaps the fatal flaw of democracies is their No True Scotsman [1] tendency.
If every democracy can tear itself apart when some fraction of it feels it is
no longer a democracy, and if that threshold is too low, then non-democracies
will outperform the democracies. (I do not believe this is the case.)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

~~~
Old_Thrashbarg
> We don't have a great democracy. But it's a democracy.

"Democracy" is not binary. You can embody the idea of "democracy" to various
degrees. For example, the US is certainly _more_ of a democracy now that
African Americans and women can vote. In the future, it may become even more
of a democracy if every adult can cast a meaningful vote regardless of what
state they're resident in.

> (If you can realistically discuss seceding, you're in a free country.)

I'm not sure this has anything to do with democracy. Canada peacefully seceded
from the [non-democractic] Commonwealth in 1867.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm not sure this has anything to do with democracy. Canada peacefully
> seceded from the [non-democractic] Commonwealth in 1867.

Canada was still part of the Empire until 1982, and remains part of the
Commonwealth of Nations. It absolutely did not secede from the Commonwealth in
1867 (which would have been difficult, since the Commonwealth wasn't
officially established until 1931, and the Dominion of Canada was itself
established from the unification of three separate British colonies—Canada,
which became Quebec and Ontario; Nova Scotia; and New Brunswick—in 1867.)

------
MilnerRoute
Er, the whole story is based on an article in The Daily Mail -- a British
newspaper that Wikipedia recently banned as "an unreliable source."

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-
bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website)

------
provost
If anyone is looking for the legal perspective, I believe the Supreme Court's
"Texas v White" is the pivotal case. From Wikipedia [1] :

>> In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the
Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United
States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the
legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such
ordinances, were "absolutely null".

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
I think the legal case is the Civil War. I would wholly support, even today,
deploying the U.S. Army against secessionist forces.

~~~
humanrebar
If the state of California decided to be a republic, I absolutely wouldn't be
comfortable shooting people as a form of disagreement.

------
JumpCrisscross
If this phenomenon keeps successfully manifesting itself across the world's
democracies, we can only conclude one of 3 things:

1\. Democracy, in our current world state ( _i.e._ in the modern mass media,
social media, _et cetera_ landscape), does not work and needs to be replaced;

2\. Western democracy is corrupted to the point of needing to be rebooted
(despite the necessary fact that this will result in a likely annihilation of
much of the West's population and factors of production); _or_

3\. The British and Trump cases cannot be generalized to all Western
democracies.

I'm betting on 3, but I don't feel great about it.

~~~
humanrebar
"Only" is a strong word. How about: democracies work best in smaller
countries. It may be much harder to have a healthy democracy spanning an
entire continent, whether that continent is North America or Europe.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _How about: democracies work best in smaller countries_

Sounds like Scenario 3. (Note: Swiss American here.)

Either way, why would mass media make large democracies _weaker_ compared to
smaller ones. Separately, does this mean democracy is incompatible with an
interplanetary species? Democracy being fundamentally unscalable is a Scenario
1 problem for anyone aspiring towards larger civilizations.

~~~
humanrebar
> Either way, why would mass media make large democracies weaker compared to
> smaller ones.

It's hard to be all things to all people. It's easier to be all things to a
smaller, more targeted group of people.

 _I_ prefer to square this circle by making fewer things national issues. I
seem to be in the minority in that opinion, but perhaps these sorts of
discussions will make people reconsider the issue.

Federalism is a way to make the national government stronger by making it
focus on its core competencies and leave more cultural issues (among others)
to state and local governments.

~~~
ajmurmann
Under Obama I had no understanding why anyone would want a stronger federalist
system. Why should we allow homosexuals to get harassed in one state but
protect them elsewhere? It's crazy! Discriminating them is always wrong
regardless where!

Well then Trump happened and I started daydreaming about the west coast
breaking away from the rest of the country. What would the ideal status after
exit look like? It turned out what I really wanted is stronger states. It's
interesting to suddenly see things from the other side. I'm glad I was
fortunate enough to get this experience as painful as it is.

~~~
humanrebar
A question that's not asked often: Why would California or Texas be more
interested in setting each others' <insert-issue-here> policy than fixing
their own?

------
ryandrake
> Meanwhile, a second Calexit campaign is underway. It’s called Yes California
> and it would see the state _succeeding_ from America entirely.

Wow, someone needs to proofread Mercury News...

~~~
mustoffa
Say Yes to success

------
mirimir
> “Texas nationalists” largely reflect a far-right or neo-Confederate
> worldview. California secessionists are almost uniformly leftists disgusted
> by conservative hegemony in the heartland. They don’t have much in common
> when it comes to their views of governance, but they do have a powerful
> shared ally — the Russian Federation.

[https://www.salon.com/2016/12/29/russia-calexit-texit-
dissen...](https://www.salon.com/2016/12/29/russia-calexit-texit-dissent/)

------
epmatsw
On one hand, it's hard to be mad about people wanting their government to be
more direct and representative of their desires. On the other, if this happens
you might as well split fully out into 50 nations, because the federal
government can't wield any real power if a state can choose to ignore the will
of the others and up and leave. That would be a shame I think.

------
tmaly
I think we have to start taking the 10th amendment seriously. It was not put
there to be ignored.

If we are a republic, states should have say as they did when this country was
formed.

People in California should be able to live as they please, but still be part
of the country. Too much centralization in DC is causing these feelings.

------
theparanoid
Far northern California and southern Oregon came the closest in the 40s, with
the State of Jefferson. Today, almost all parts of California are more left
leaning.

------
masterleep
It is rather absurd how large California is compared to many other states.
There should be a general process to split large states rather than doing this
as a one-off though. For example, after the 10-year census, the largest state
gets divided in half.

~~~
CalChris
How about instead merging North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana?
739,482 + 853,175 + 584,153 + 1.024M = 3,200,810 which is less than the
population of LA but for some stupid reason has 8 Senators.

~~~
scottLobster
I get your point, but bad example. The Senate was never designed around
population. In fact it's original purpose was to represent the incumbent state
governments vs the house representing "the people". It wasn't until 1913 that
Senators were popularly elected.

~~~
CalChris
Wyoming has a population of 584,153. California has a population of 38.8
million, 66 times more population. They both have 2 Senators.

California also pays more than its share in Federal taxes and gets less in
Federal spending. If you look at the Base Closure Commission list, CA lost 28.
Mississippi isn't even on the list because they didn't lose any.

Your originalist argument means nothing.

~~~
scottLobster
You're judging a system by standards it was never intended to meet and
declaring victory. If you're going to argue that small states are over-
represented, do it well. Plenty of examples of Gerrymandering as well as the
electoral college itself.

If you want to debate whether the Senate should exist or not, or whether it
serves a purpose or not, or whether how senators are allocated should be
changed or not, then fine. But that's a whole other thread.

I'd also argue that the Senate serves the important purpose of preventing
abuse-of-the-majority, a problem known as far back as Ancient Greek democracy
and well-considered by the founders.

Getting rid of the Senate or making Senator allocation population-based with
no further structural modifications would simply turn us into the United City-
states of America. Which is great... if you live in a city and aren't a
regional political minority.

~~~
CalChris
The Senate is of Roman origin and definitely not Greek. The form of government
it emulates is republican and not democratic. _Et cetera._

~~~
narrowrail
Given your comments, I believe you should read some of the Federalist Papers.
Specifically, #10, #39 and #45. The states were designed to be the
democracies, but the federal governments was designed as a republic; this was
very deliberate.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._39](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._39)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45)

~~~
CalChris
Ummm. No. Federalist 10 _does not design states to be the democracies_.
Indeed, it is positively hostile to democracy.

    
    
      From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a 
      pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a 
      small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the 
      government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs 
      of faction.
    

Also, states were formerly colonies with assemblies that stretched back 150
years _already_ when the Articles of Confederation were written. And the big C
didn't design states; it _recognized_ them since they _already_ existed both
in the Colonial era and during the Articles decade.

