

Tim Draper Gives Details on Initiative to Split California into Six States - epenn
http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/23/yes-its-real-tim-draper-gives-details-on-ballot-initiative-to-make-silicon-valley-a-state/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=sfgplus&utm_content=FaceBook&%3Fncid=sfgplus

======
martinjones
This is just an attempt to get attention. States can't just decide to split
themselves into multiple states, it requires federal legislation.

The only state that can split itself up is Texas, which was part of the
agreement to bring the Republic of Texas into the union.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_divisionism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_divisionism)

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is just an attempt to get attention. States can't just decide to split
> themselves into multiple states, it requires federal legislation.

It requires _both_ State action and federal legislation. But the State action
is clearly a required step.

> The only state that can split itself up is Texas, which was part of the
> agreement to bring the Republic of Texas into the union.

As your own link notes, that agreement _specifically_ cited that it could only
be done subject to the requirements of the Constitution, which would seem to
mean that Texas can do it _exactly as much_ as any other state can -- that is,
with action of the State legislature _and_ the federal Congress.

------
codex
“The status quo is just not going to work,” said draper. “The existing breadth
of industry and various interests in California is untenable.”

Are there specific examples of problems that splitting CA would fix? It seems
that a split would make many of these new states more extreme than the average
of old CA, but perhaps that is a good thing.

~~~
wwweston
> Are there specific examples of problems that splitting CA would fix?

Not anywhere in any article I've seen -- just more platitudes about the size
of government and vague allusions to California being ungovernable.
Particularly frustrating in an article that announces it gives details.

There are indeed some issues that make California difficult to govern, but if
I were picking them out, I'd put limits to the power of legislators to make
policy without supermajorities and the initiative process itself pretty far
above the idea that we just don't have enough state lines in the region ("Hi,
I think state government is a terrible problem and to solve it we should make
5 more of them.")

It seems like a good guess that what Draper really means by "ungovernable" is
that as the balance of power and philosophy now lies, there are some personal
business or political goals that he's unable to bring to pass, despite
significant wealth or influence.

~~~
StefanKarpinski
My guess is that this is all about Silicon Valley secession and the five other
states really just serve to make it seem more reasonable.

------
jrochkind1
> He expects the citizens to crowdsource many of the ideas around water
> rights…

Does that even mean something?

------
jmspring
I'm curious how much agriculture propped up the California economy during the
last few tech busts. As a California native, the divisions are naive bordering
on idiotic. A state of Silicon Valley that were to have a tech downturn would
have serious problems with a lack of diversity in industry.

But, hey, Tim Draper has way more money than I do and California has a history
of letting those with lots of money float silly ideas.

~~~
mblakele
Agriculture in California is relatively unimportant, according to 2008 BEA
statistics cited at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gross_Domestic_Product_of_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gross_Domestic_Product_of_California_2008_%28millions_of_current_dollars%29.svg)
\- just 2% of California's notional GDP. I think I have read 4% from another
source, but either way it is marginal.

I tend to think that the comments on electoral statistics have this right. It
is an attempt to tilt the Senate and Electoral College.

~~~
gte910h
It may be economically not significant, but its a huge pile of food.

I live on the east coast, and much of my food is _still_ from California
farms.

------
TrainedMonkey
I really doubt GOP will just lie down and let five more extremely democratic
states happen.

~~~
dragonwriter
I haven't done a detailed analysis of the political impacts, but just looking
at the map and having some knowledge of the political geography of the State,
it looks like it would probably be a win for Republicans in the Senate and
Presidential elections -- going from one solid Blue state to a either a 3/3 or
2/4 split of Blue and Red states; the Blue _regions_ of California are largely
concentrated in "Silicon Valley" and "West California".

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Not sure about that. Breaking it down, I think that all six areas would go
Democrat - the Republican bastions of San Diego, Inland Empire, Central
Valley, and Greater SLO are all jerrymandered into the larger Democratic areas
of LA, Sacramento, and Santa Barabara.

Silicon Valley: Strong Democrat

West California (Santa Barabara, right?): Medium/Light Dem

Jefferson (Humbolt?): Strong Dem

South California: Strong Dem

Central California: Medium Dem (because of Sacto)

North California: Solid Dem (?)

~~~
BryantD
I ran the numbers based on voting percentages from the 2012 presidential
election. I also added a rough guess at expected House members; hard to guess
the breakdown given gerrymandering. Anyhow, yeah, this marginally tosses some
electoral votes to the Republicans and you have to expect that South
California would be more heavily contested so a bit of a tossup. Central
California too, but South California is the big deal.

    
    
    	                 DEM 	         REP	        DEM %	REP %	 POP	        HOUSE
        Jefferson	         175,551 	 187,898 	48%	52%	 949,240 	1
        North California	 889,742 	 599,778 	60%	40%	 3,742,229 	5
        Central California	 542,933 	 573,944 	49%	51%	 4,124,776 	5
        Silicon Valley	 1,904,135 	 608,154 	76%	24%	 6,597,332 	9
        West California	 2,543,219 	 1,157,864 	69%	31%	 11,335,455 	15
        South California	 1,798,705 	 1,712,320 	51%	49%	 10,504,924 	14

~~~
dragonwriter
> I ran the numbers based on voting percentages from the 2012 presidential
> election.

The 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections (that is, the votes for President
specifically, not the 2008 and 2012 elections in general) have most parts of
the state voting substantially more Democratic than normal (either past
Presidential elections or non-Presidential elections in the same period.)

That may be a durable Presidential realignment, but I'd be a bit skeptical of
that; even if it is, those last two Presidential elections are probably
understate the Republican position for anything _but_ Presidential elections
(if its not a durable Presidential realignment, it overstates the Republican
position even there.)

------
adamnemecek
Incomplete list of things that most certainly won't happen: this.

------
jyzzmoe
This will amount to exactly nothing.

~~~
Railroadcar9
no this is about over regulation massive corruption and complete lack of any
in sac or southern to address the real issues facing the people here, its
about lack of representation and those who wish to free themselves from the
out of control government, liberals = ignore corruption because they worship
the institutions of government . The Jefferson State lives here.
[http://youtu.be/MMnRZXz51WE](http://youtu.be/MMnRZXz51WE)

~~~
gametheoretic
"Blank is about blank" statements have no real meaning; you'll rarely find
them in use outside politics, where they enjoy extreme popularity due to the
difficulty of their conversational negation.

------
JoeAltmaier
I've thought for years, California needs to be two states, split at Monterey
(everybody would want to keep Monterey so split it). The politics of Southern
California (ok LA) is completely different from regular California, especially
regarding water rights.

~~~
memracom
Those are the Ecotopia borders I believe.

It would not be a bad idea to hand over an area east of Sacramento to be
joined with Nevada.

As far as naming goes, Silicon Valley sucks. Silicon Valley is too small to be
a viable state economically. A state needs some diversity in it. A coastal
chunk from Monterrey Bay north up to and including Napa would be more
realistic but that is not Silicon Valley.

------
cphoover
There is a reason Washington, D.C. Does not have voting rights or substantive
representation in congress and that is that republicans don't want to give
more votes to democrats. Republicans would never let something like this
happen

------
thuuuomas
Anyone want to explain the significance of their chosen boundaries to a non-
Californian?

~~~
pedalpete
My best guess as a non-Californian.

Top Blue - I believe this is a mountainous region, not much industry.

Purple - Massive forest area (on the coast at least), also small population
and not much industry

Yellow - North Bay, San Francisco, Silicon Valley and Sacramento. Lots of
industry, technology and money. Large population as a whole spread out fairly
evenly across the region, so lots of medium sized towns and small cities (S.F,
Oakland, San Jose, Palo Alto, etc.etc.). Industry includes the big names you
know, Google, Facebook, Apple, as well as large research facilities (I believe
NASA has a large centre there). Lots of Universities as well.

Red - Some farm-land, mountainous further inland. I believe cattle, cheese,
and some fruit orchards.

Green - Great farmland. Grapes and wine region, orchards, lots of cattle land.
Moderate populations, towns like San Luis Obispo (great part of California if
you haven't visited).

Orange - Massive populations of Los Angeles also medium sized cities of San
Diego, Palm Springs/Desert. Massive industry throughout the area serving the
population and the industries of Los Angeles. LA is a massive manufacturing
hub (clothing, automobiles, the list goes on and on). Massive sea port at Long
Beach (there may be others too).

~~~
dmckeon
For the political side, here is a per-county view:
[http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/in-
calif...](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/in-california-
growing-diversity-first-made-its-mark/?_r=0)

On the practical side, a division into 6 parts avoids the usual North/South
argument, or the less frequent North/Central/South version, and could be
walked back to a 5, 4, or 3-way split.

That said, I recall a survey not long after Prop 13 that had Californians
liking a 2-way split, as long as the part that each respondent lived in 'got'
Disneyland, and the other part got Sacramento. This proposal seems about as
likely to happen as that one.

------
vonskippy
Guess he can't let Bezos and his dorky drones get all the media attention.

------
jliptzin
Split into 6 parts? Why not start with 2 and see where you get?

~~~
protomyth
Starting with 3 would be a lot more interesting. Los Angeles metropolitan area
(Southland), San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area, and
then the rest.

------
stevewillows
Any chance us Cascadians can get a piece?

------
goggles99
> _federal authorities will have to buy more chairs for the Senate floor_

Oh the irony of this statement...

------
Railroadcar9
rubbish it is possible but require a simple majority vote in both the state
legislators and congress

