Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Northern California would be a lot nicer if it were a separate state, formed at the border of Monterey and SLO counties.

The real divide in California is not between north and south, but between coastal and inland. SF and LA have a lot more in common with each other, culturally, politically, and economically, than either of them has with Bakersfield or Fresno.

A lot of people north of that agree that Northern California would be a lot nicer if it were a separate state, but want the border at the Golden Gate.

Well sure if you want to split CA up into more than just southern and northern halves. My suggestion was only for a northern and southern half.

What you're describing is generally called gerrymandering. It consolidates support bases and causes entrenchment.

California split in half at the Monterey-SLO border? Seems awfully natural if you're going to split CA into northern and southern halves (with the boundary continuing east- I don't know the geography very well out there). That's hardly gerrymandering.

One problem with ideas like that is: how viable would such a state be by itself?

What you're proposing is probably a state with less population than Wyoming. We don't need more states like that. In fact, we should be eliminating states like RI and WY, and combining those areas with other regions to form more populous states, so we don't have this problem where we have some states that have enormous populations and some with puny populations; they should be more equal.

Instead, if northern Californians don't want to be part of the same state as the Bay Area, maybe they should push instead to join Oregon.

Edit: Sorry, I thought this was a proposal along the lines of the State of Jefferson, to break off the very northern part of California, in wine country, north of the Bay Area.

San Francisco, by itself, has a population of 864,816. The state of Wyoming, in its entirety, has 586,107 residents.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with California counties. I thought he was one of those people advocating splitting off the very northern part of California, the part north of the Bay Area. There was a movement to do that long, long ago, called the "State of Jefferson" IIRC.

Yeah, splitting the state in half around the mid-section does make sense; the state is too large, and the north and south halves are pretty different from each other. While they're at it, Las Vegas should probably join the southern half.

The State of Jefferson is alive and well, according to a surprisingly large number of billboards in my home town.

I find these billboards amusing when I am up in the "empty quarter". The State of Jefferson folks believe in sovereignty but wouldn't have the economy to maintain even a fraction of their roads, or to fight a fraction of their fires.

Yeah, that's why I think they should just join up with Oregon instead. They probably have a lot more in common culturally (and geographically) with Oregon than they do any place in California.

No, the North and South halves aren't very different (particularly, they are less different than a similarly over simplistic coastal/inland divide.)

The map also totally ignores state by state rivalries. Cats up here in Oregon throw a lot of shade at California. Colorado and Oklahoma have lots of beef, but this map puts Denver and OKC in the same mega-region.

Wait, CA north of the Monterey SLO border has less population than Wyoming? The Bay Area and Sacramento? edit: this isn't viable and has Wyoming levels of population? http://imgur.com/fF5SZYJ

When people talk about Northern California they generally include the SF Bay Area.

The biggest problem with that is the water agreements. Southern CA does not have enought water to sustain its population. It needs Northern CA. There are more people in Southern CA, so splitting the state is unlikely to pass in a state referendum.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact