Dividing California into 6 states?

[GrantDawg]

Not likely to happen, but I thought it was interesting: Plan to split California into six states gains ground - Yahoo News

I want a state called Jefferson!

[NobodyHere]

Sounds like a plan to give us more Republican Senators.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Sounds like a plan to give us more Republican Senators.

And votes for Republican presidential candidates in the Electrical College.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by mckerney

And votes for Republican presidential candidates in the Electrical College.

Whatever is necessary to keep Obama from implementing Euro-style plugs.

[nol]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Not likely to happen, but I thought it was interesting: Plan to split California into six states gains ground - Yahoo News

I want a state called Jefferson!

This is coming from the same mindset that compared the discussion on income inequality to Kristallnacht, so yeah.

[Solecismic]

It does illustrate the arbitrary nature in which we determine representation and our presidency. Breaking up large, reliable chunks belonging to one party can have a huge effect.

The House of Representatives, in theory, is the "fairest" way to determine representation because you get close to one vote per 700,000 in population. But gerrymandering (on both sides, I assume) has given us some fairly bad representatives in places.

The Senate is more along the lines that states are somewhat independent entities. That was a reasonable distinction before the Information Age. Now, it just seems like redundancy of inefficiency.

Anyway, this proposal would change the Presidential game in the Republicans' favor. I'd imagine if I lived outside of SF or LA and I were a Republican, I'd say, "yeah, finally, a chance to be heard." But we could say the same of so many areas.

This is how it breaks down, based on 2012 presidential voting (other candidates are ignored):

State...............Pct.Obama......Pct.Romney.......D.Sen?....R.Sen?....D.EV.....R.EV
Jefferson...................46.4................53.6.............1...........1.........0........3
North.California...........58.9................41.1.............2...........0.........7........0
Central.California.........47.2................52.8.............1...........1.........0........8
Silicon.Valley..............75.8.................24.2............2...........0........11........0
West.California...........67.4.................32.6............2...........0.........18.......0
South.California..........50.0.................50.0............1...........1..........0.......16
TOTAL......................60.7.................39.3............9...........3.........36.......27
Existing.Format...................................................2..........0..........55.......0

Note that Central and South California would be important swing states. Romney would have won South California by a whopping 563 votes out of 3.1 million votes cast in 2012.

Of course, California is now a secure +2 D in the Senate. Under this proposal, that advantage could be eliminated or it could become much greater. Here, I'm assuming a split Senate representation if the difference in Obama/Romney votes is less than 10 points. In reality, it depends on candidate quality and a host of other factors. It's pretty much worst-case for the Republicans under that accounting. I think Democrats would welcome the split in the Senate.

In the Electoral College, of course, there's nothing but good news for Republicans. Even though more EVs come out of the Californias, enough will go R to amount to a net positive. And it will force the Democratic presidential candidate to spend a lot of time in San Diego and Central California, which are irrelevant in the current system.

In the House, you get 51 representatives rather than 53 (rounded up from 52.6), but that's due to the rounding you need to calculate representation, so it will change every 10 years. There's no strong effect either way.

I can't say whether I'd be pro or con here myself. There are already so many problems with the two-party system that I guess I'm in favor of anything that both parties dislike.

[bulletsponge]

just what we need, more senators

[Desnudo]

8 seems high although this does make sense if you believe that local government is more effective government. I would be interested to see a poll between northern and southern residents if you just divided it in two.

[lungs]

Would carving up Texas do something in the other direction?

[nol]

Originally Posted by lungs

Would carving up Texas do something in the other direction?

Almost certainly if it works for California, which is currently one of the least gerrymandered states.

[Vince, Pt. II]

The diversity of the state is such that a simple cut in two doesn't make much sense. Six might be a bit much though - I think three is a bit more palatable and makes more sense - North (includes the Central Valley), Central Coast (bay area + Santa Cruz & Monterey) and South (San Luis Obispo and everything south along the coast, LA + SD).

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I want a state called Jefferson!

That movie would be a remake.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The House of Representatives, in theory, is the "fairest" way to determine representation because you get close to one vote per 700,000 in population. But gerrymandering (on both sides, I assume) has given us some fairly bad representatives in places.

Democratic candidates won the popular vote by 1.4million votes in all House elections in 2012, yet the Republicans won a 33 seat majority. There is no doubt gerrymandering on both sides, but it's quite clear who benefits most from it.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I can't say whether I'd be pro or con here myself. There are already so many problems with the two-party system that I guess I'm in favor of anything that both parties dislike.

Agreed.

[stevew]

For a lesson in Gerrymandering see PA. State goes solidly Obama but split in the house is 5/13. 4 of the 5 were the largest margins of victory in state.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I want a state called Jefferson!

Only if we go completely for the founding fathers thing & name the capital George.

[Apathetic Lurker]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Only if we go completely for the founding fathers thing & name the capital George.

Great, now we can all visit George, Jefferson on our vacation...Is that anywhere near Louise, Jefferson?

[cuervo72]

So we're moving toward gerrymandering entire states now huh?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Only if we go completely for the founding fathers thing & name the capital George.

They'd be moving on up?

SI

[SFL Cat]

If they couldn't get their ducks in a row to split Cali into two states, I'm very doubtful they can do so to split it up into six. I also don't see Congress signing off on that and essentially giving California 12 Senators...

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If they couldn't get their ducks in a row to split Cali into two states, I'm very doubtful they can do so to split it up into six. I also don't see Congress signing off on that and essentially giving California 12 Senators...

pretty sure the constitution would need to be changed.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Democratic candidates won the popular vote by 1.4million votes in all House elections in 2012, yet the Republicans won a 33 seat majority. There is no doubt gerrymandering on both sides, but it's quite clear who benefits most from it.



Agreed.

These things come and go in shifts, like a pendulum. democrats benefited for decades from Gerrymandering when they had most or all of Congress until the 90s.

They also mismanaged it in some local places. For example, in WV, they created a highly conservative but hugely democratic district in the previous 12 district Kanawha County for House of Delegates. They expected to pull in four easily, and then compete in the 7 person district for the Repub seats, and hoped to drop Rs from 5 to 3 or 2 in the county. But, the people were very conservative, and comfortable voting with a fellow conservative and went 4 for 4 on Repubs, and kept with that for more than 16 years. They lost seats because they didn;t really understand the demographic. I could give you more from my various texts, but they lost in Gerrymandering in the last time in the 1990 census after viewing party loyalty as higher than they should, and helped to carve a path for some Rs to get in in the 1994 swing election.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

pretty sure the constitution would need to be changed.

Why would the Constitution need to be changed?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Why would the Constitution need to be changed?

Because of two senators per state.If CA were divided into 6 states, the rules would be 12 total senators from the state. That simply won't work for the rest of the country. The 12 CA senators would have way too much power. They'd need to treat CA as six separate states for the electoral college, but as one state for senators.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Because of two senators per state.If CA were divided into 6 states, the rules would be 12 total senators from the state. That simply won't work for the rest of the country. The 12 CA senators would have way too much power. They'd need to treat CA as six separate states for the electoral college, but as one state for senators.

Wouldn't it just be 6 states rather than 1 state? There is no longer a CA state but... well, whatever they called the other states just like no one thinks of North and South Dakota congressional delegation as the Dakota senators.

SI

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Because of two senators per state.If CA were divided into 6 states, the rules would be 12 total senators from the state. That simply won't work for the rest of the country. The 12 CA senators would have way too much power. They'd need to treat CA as six separate states for the electoral college, but as one state for senators.

I don't recall a historical argument that Massachusetts was really getting 4 senators as the reason to vote against Maine splitting off and getting its own state.

[albionmoonlight]

Article IV, Section 3:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So the Constitution does speak to this.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Article IV, Section 3:



So the Constitution does speak to this.

BOOM goes the dynamite!

[stevew]

SECTION 3.

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

So, you'd need the Cali legislature to approve. It's currently 28D-11R in the senate and 55D-25R in the house. I'm guessing they would want a plan that heavily favors the democrats in splitting it. Then you'd have to get it through the house and senate and I'm assuming you'd need 60 senate votes in order to block the filibuster. It's just so unlikely that something like this happens and the amount of favors that would need to be traded is prohibitive.

[JPhillips]

I can't believe anyone thinks the country really needs another ten little Napoleans in the Senate.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I can't believe anyone thinks the country really needs another ten little Napoleans in the Senate.

This too.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I can't believe anyone thinks the country really needs another ten little Napoleans in the Senate.

It's not just 10 little Napoleans. It's the area they would suddenly all be from. OK, you split it up where dems and reps will be equally divided as of now. The problem is with the pork and other garbage added to the bills, these guys would all be one the same side. The current state of California would go from 2% power in the senate (2 out of 100) to 11% (12 out of 110) overnight.

While I live in CA and this would likely be a really good thing in terms of the money and the pork getting to my state, it would be horrible in practice. I hate that as someone who votes equally, anytime I vote for Republican candidate, my vote will go up in smoke. That said, it's better than suddenly turning CA into six different states and screwing with things.

[sterlingice]

How is this any different than states in the Midwest banding together for a farm bill? Or the longstanding Southern coalition? California has almost as many people and economy as those whole areas put together.

I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, frankly- I just don't see the distinction.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

And if we're going to monkey with one state why not monkey with others based on population?

Do we really need a NORTH and a SOUTH Dakota? Put them together and reduce their number of representatives accordingly.

[Dr. Sak]

Lex Luthor predicted this years ago...

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Lex Luthor predicted this years ago...

Thread won!

[stevew]

This dude was on the Carolla show. Basically that map isn't set in stone. Each county can decide to join any of the 6 states they want. I wasn't sure if congruety matters either. Likely you get 1 whole county of LA in it's own state since it would be insane for anyone to join with it. I suspect the Bay will be on its own. All of the rural counties will try to populate and form their own heavily right wing states I'd suspect. You'll end up with, and this is just a heavy guess with 0 research, 4 D lock Napoleons, probably 6 R lock Napoleons and perhaps 1 swing state. The Republican party would see significant gains in the house and the electoral college vote would be split about 50/50. The dude tried to act like it was all about competition but it's just gerrymandering

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Lex Luthor predicted this years ago...

LOL. Winner!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Democratic candidates won the popular vote by 1.4million votes in all House elections in 2012, yet the Republicans won a 33 seat majority. There is no doubt gerrymandering on both sides, but it's quite clear who benefits most from it.

I think the myth is perpetuated due to some truly egregious gerrymanded districts in, specifically, the Chicago area, which are always trotted out (rightly so) as being egregious examples.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I can't say whether I'd be pro or con here myself. There are already so many problems with the two-party system that I guess I'm in favor of anything that both parties dislike.

The state construct is no longer relevant in the 21st century. I'd start with that as a basic assumption. Sure, I'd let state governments continue (and local ones too) as there are certainly some services / decisions better done at those levels. But switch representation to a complete federal level. As in you vote, as a country, for representation.

And, in so doing, have all 100 senators, and all 435 reps elected on the basis of proportional representation. People vote for a party and then the votes are divided up based on percentages.

In one fell swoop you get rid of a lot of location-based pork-barrel (not that it'll all go away) and you make it much, much easier for other parties to start getting reps at the federal level (though that'll still take time).

If that's a bridge too far (and let's be honest, it is), keep the Senate the way it is to keep the convention of states' representation, but switch over the house to a complete federal, PR election.

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

These things come and go in shifts, like a pendulum. democrats benefited for decades from Gerrymandering when they had most or all of Congress until the 90s.

I just took a quick look at Congressional election returns on wikipedia from 1960 to 1990 and aside from some elections in the late-60s and mid-90s where the Democrats seem to have had a disproportionate number of seats compared to their margin of victory in the popular vote, I'm not seeing any real evidence for this.

And note, those years were following some truly massive popular vote victories and may have been the effect of holding on to seats while losing votes for seats they didn't hold anyway (typical of post-landslide elections).

Also note, none of these were like 2012 where the GOP won more seats but less of the popular vote. So I don't see the correlation.

I think it's safe to say that while gerrymandering has always been with us, it's also worse than it ever has been. Which makes sense, given our increased sophistication around things like data, demographics, statistics, etc....