
Plan to split California into three states earns spot on November ballot - spking
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html
======
Nasrudith
The only real merit of the plan in my opinion is increased Senate
representation to be more representative of people - land doesn't vote.
However that would probably cause contagious state Balkinization instead of
doing the proper thing and doing away with the colony uniting artifact of
fixed representation - which is politically pretty unviable.

But this is at the cost of probable administrative efficiency to redundancy
and loss of their large size leverage. The sponsors are naked about their bad
intentions however - wanting to disrupt bargaining power for sheer selfish
reasons. Preventing Medicare bargaining was bad for everyone except special
interests.

~~~
tvmalsv
If I remember correctly, the senators were originally not elected, but chosen
by the state to represent the states' interests, while only the
representatives were elected to represent the people's interests. That's why
the number of senators doesn't jive with the populations. Each state is then
equally represented and of equal importance in the senate.

~~~
zeveb
IMHO we really ought to repeal the 17th Amendment and return to state
appointment of senators. The states need a voice in the federal government,
and that voice is supposed to be the Senate.

But then, I'd also like to see legislatures appointing electors to the
Electoral College …

~~~
magduf
>we really ought to repeal the 17th Amendment and return to state appointment
of senators.

This sounds good in theory, but the reason they passed the 17A in the first
place was because of widespread corruption in the Senate.

>But then, I'd also like to see legislatures appointing electors to the
Electoral College …

That's not going to fix anything either. What they need to do is replace the
Constitution and adopt a Westminster parliament like every other decent
democratic republic out there. How many countries have a presidential system
like ours? Only a few, and they're ones like El Salvador, not exactly
countries you want to emulate.

------
rectang
The plan is a gerrymander that maximally concentrates people likely to vote
Democratic into one state along the coast.

Democrats have had enough of gerrymandering, and California is pretty blue
these days. This won't pass.

~~~
creaghpatr
Sure but if I'm not mistaken they would gain 4 additional Senators
(collectively) which would theoretically 'balance' the fracturing and likely
loss of democrat house seats and/or electoral votes. Democrats have a greater
disadvantage in the Senate currently so this could be good for them in the
short term- they could swing the Senate under the current Congress which is a
huge deal.

I don't have an opinion on whether that's better or worse, but there are pros
and cons. I doubt it will happen but it's a more plausible debate than
succession at least.

~~~
rectang
The issue is not just Senators. Splitting California is also an electoral
college win for Republicans, and a state government win as well.

Secession would be a cowardly abandonment of those who are treated poorly in
other states.

~~~
throwaway5752
Bingo. It fractures a powerful adversary for the parties pushing this. This
comes up all the time with NYC/Long Island and New York (but, curiously, not
for Texas or Florida) for the same reason. There are advantages to controlling
the largest state in the country, and that advantage would shift to Texas.
Since in either outcome this causes distraction and dissension, it's already a
victory.

~~~
protomyth
There has been talk of splitting Texas into 5 states. Florida has had a South
Florida split talks in the past.

New York City would be interesting because it seems like a split would really
need to cross state lines which would make it really, really difficult.

~~~
throwaway5752
_" There has been talk of splitting Texas into 5 states"_ \- 1845

 _" Florida has had a South Florida split talks in the past"_ \- Municipal
level

NY and CA are on a whole different level than anything else in recent history.

------
shipman05
"States will be more accountable to us and can cooperate and compete for
citizens." Translation: a corporate tax race-to-the-bottom that ensures lower
tax revenues for all three states with zero net-new jobs.

------
mikece
If California does split into different states such that Los Angeles and its
water supply are in different states then you have an instant, protracted,
bitter, and expensive interstate water rights dispute to pay for. I'm not sure
either prospective California would be looking forward to that unless there is
a plan in place to share water.

------
vimy
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European
countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options
that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue
to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with
our award-winning journalism."

Does anybody have a copy of the article?

~~~
Karunamon
[http://archive.is/dL6iE](http://archive.is/dL6iE)

Yay GDPR nonsense.

------
JoeAltmaier
I lived there 10 years, and it was obvious the state had multiple different
interests. The south wants the north's water, and doesn't pay anything for it.
The south is farming; the north, technology. The far north is radical
environmentalism; the rest only mildly so.

I always used to suggest they split it in two - at Monterey right down the
middle, since both halves would want Monterey. There's a fault line splitting
it already, so its a natural division as well!

~~~
bhauer
I woke up a bit late today because I figured the other 14 million in Los
Angeles and San Diego had today's farming chores covered.

------
amacbride
As a 5-generation Californian, I will address this in my native language:

"Dude, this is totally lame."

------
craigg75
Why not go one step further and just create their own country, Republic of
California. United States is too large as it is. Less is more.

------
mikece
If the state does split in three I think it will only take about five minutes
for the counties who want to split off and form Jefferson to submit an
initiative to split Northern California. Likewise, Orange County and San
Diego, while more similar to each other in ideology than Los Angeles or San
Francisco, will be chomping at the bit to disassociate from each other as
well.

Honestly, I don't think the state will ever split, but if it does a simple
split like the 3 Californias proposal would make the most sense.

~~~
Aloha
As someone who grew up in Orange County - most of Orange County by land is
closely culturally tied to Los Angeles, not San Diego.

The dividing line is the 55 freeway - everything south of the 55 is 'behind
the orange curtain' everything north is part of LA, culturally.

------
dragonwriter
> Three states will get us better infrastructure, better education and lower
> taxes

Note that “us” in this case refers to different states: the state containing
SF will get better infrastructure and education (because of both priorities
and money, and, in the case of education, even if it maintains statewide equal
per-pupil funding, it won't be equalized with as many poorer regions.)

The bright red state that doesn't have SF or LA in it will get lower taxes, at
least in the near term, but not better infrastructure or education (safety net
programs with federal, state economy driven funding, will get bigger
subsidies, though.)

The one with LA will probably see the least political change, because LA
already dominates the unified state.

------
artificial
This has come up multiple times over the years and doesn’t have a chance. Good
luck!

~~~
throwaway5752
It will pass this time for the same reason that Brexit and the US presidential
election had the outcomes they did.

~~~
artificial
Shall we place a wager? I'm willing to escrow money on this.

~~~
throwaway5752
Gentleperson's wager. I hope that I'm wrong too much to want to benefit from
it. I very much hope it doesn't pass, but I also don't know who is out there
working to prevent the sort of tactics that achieved Brexit. It is
astonishingly low hanging fruit for anyone that would benefit from this
strategic outcome.

------
mikelward
I would assume that if it ever happens, it would break into two states:
Northern California and Southern California, divided roughly at the 36°30'
North parallel, keeping existing county borders.

That would place San Francisco, Sacramento, Monterey and Fresno in Northern
California, and Los Angeles, San Diego, and Bakersfield in Southern
California.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_36°30′_north](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_36°30′_north)

~~~
Aloha
Yeah, this makes sense - though I'd shift Inyo and Mono counties to Southern
California to prevent contentious two state discussions about water rights.

------
Aloha
Also as a Native Californian - I question the logic of any proposal that
splits the LA area into two states. Orange County is an integral part of the
Los Angeles region.

If they were just talking about splitting in to two states - Northern
California, and Southern California it might be more viable, as there are
distinct cultural lines in the state to be drawn - but three states makes no
sense to me, especially with the boundaries drawn as they are.

------
zer0faith
As an outsider and someone who is not even remotely close to the situation
this sounds like a politically motivated move that is justified by unfounded
claims.

~~~
mikeash
Likewise. The whole idea seems to be based on the current California
government failing its citizens. And yet California is arguably the most
prosperous and successful state in the nation. Why mess with that?

I’m pretty sure the answer to that rhetorical question is, because that
success and prosperity has happened under liberal policies.

------
nytesky
So what will be the economic engine of Southern California, without LA or SF?
Fresno?!

~~~
mc32
San Diego is pretty Dynamic but Fresno would make sense for the inland empire.

------
exabrial
Why not include San Francisco in the coastal state?

~~~
adestefan
Because this is nothing more than attempt to add 4 more Senators that have a
chance of being won by Republicans. It's the same reason why "Southern
California" includes OC.

~~~
LyndsySimon
That doesn't make sense...

This would add a net of four more Senators, which only _might_ go Republican.
Considering that California is generally considered solidly blue as it stands,
this would almost certainly result in the balance shifting toward the
Democrats in the Senate.

~~~
wang_li
Parts of California are reliably red. If you split them into their own state,
their Senators, Representatives, and electoral votes would likely go red.

~~~
LyndsySimon
I totally get that - I'm very interested in gun rights, and have been at least
cursorily aware of the issues in getting carry permits in various California
jurisdictions.

My point is that the way the state is divided in this proposal all but
guarantees that all three will be blue.

------
pinewurst
Reminder that the prime supporter of this is the same person still
vociferously defending Theranos and its odious leaders.

------
api
Splitting LA and OC is idiotic. OC is the suburbs of LA. Of course the whole
thing is fairly unlikely and not really a good idea.

~~~
mc32
Not really, DC and Virginia are well integrated (economically). Northern New
Jersey and NYC are integrated, despite state borders, so much so they even
have common government bodies like the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey.

I’m all for states to split if it makes sense. Texas, New York (upstate vs
downstate), and of course California. The needs are too disparate and varied
and could be better served by more attuned regional governments.

I know I’ll seriously consider voting for the split. The politics are way too
dysfunctional at the state level.

~~~
m_ke
I wouldn't call Jersey and NYC well integrated. If Jersey City was part of New
York we'd be able to take the subway to Newark . Instead we get to deal with
fake traffic on the GW because Jersey decided to elect Chris Christie.

As a New Yorker I'd be all for trading upstate NYC for part of north Jersey.

~~~
mc32
I more or less mean economically. The issue you illustrate exists in the Bay
Area, San Mateo county didn’t sign on to Bart in the 50s and 60s when things
were being planned out. We are still experiencing the ramifications of that.
No state borders involved.

------
jdlyga
Sounds good to me. Approved

------
sambull
Which of those three states has the water resources?

------
mikeash
Russian trolls have pushed the Calexit secession campaign. I wonder if they’re
involved in this as well.

~~~
neonIcon
I can't tell if this is /s or not..

~~~
mikeash
Not at all. Russian involvement in Calexit is pretty well supported, just
search. They’re out to weaken this country by exploiting existing political
fault lines. Supporting a plan to split up our most successful and prosperous
state fits right into their MO.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I know who you are (at least as an HN commenter), which is why I'm giving you
the benefit of the doubt here. But when someone says "X is well known, just
search", they're usually peddling some complete nonsense that happens to have
a web page that Google knows about. The way you phrased that (and didn't
actually supply any evidence) trips the BS detector, at least for me.

As I said, I give you the benefit of the doubt, because you don't post that
way, and I don't think you meant to here. It's just an unfortunate phrasing,
but I thought I'd mention it.

As to the substance of your statement: Yes, this fits the pattern. But I don't
think they care whether they split California or not. Splitting it doesn't
change things very much. (Unlike, say, presidential elections. And on that
topic, it occurs to me that we got handed an absolutely horrible choice in
2016. Maybe we ought to be looking more closely for interference in the
primaries, not just in the general election.)

I think the real goal is to create conflict. This is a nice topic to get
everybody all wound up about. I think they'll try to amplify that. Whether or
not they're behind the proposal, they'll try to rile up both sides.

One of the things to watch for is the _reasons_ that are presented for people
to become agitated. Since agitprop is not "organic" (for want of a better
word), the reasons given for becoming outraged seem a bit... off. Foreign,
even. You think, "everyone's freaking out about this, but it doesn't quite
resonate with me". That's a hint that it may be manufactured outrage, rather
than real.

~~~
mikeash
It’s as easy as googling “calexit Russia” and seeing the parade of sources
from reputable outlets. What’s the right phrasing for something like that? Or
do I need to source everything?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
You're right, it is that easy. The first one I found came from the BBC, which
is generally regarded as reputable, by almost everybody on both sides of the
Red/Blue war: [https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-
trending-41853131](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131)

What's the right phrasing? The way you phrased it fit a pattern in my mind.
That's not much of a concern if other people don't share that pattern.
(Judging by the downvotes, not many do.) To placate me, you might say "just
search, and pick a source that you consider reliable" \- that eliminates the
possibility of some fringe view whose only sources are fringe. But that's me -
that works for a sample of one; any further applicability is uncertain.

> Or do I need to source everything?

That might be the answer. Posts are read more than they are written. If you
google it, you save 10 or 1000 readers from having to google it. (Of course,
if some of your readers consider BBC to be "fringe" or "part of the deep
state" or whatever, the link you choose from the search may not satisfy
them...)

~~~
mikeash
I see what you mean. I’ll keep this in mind.

