The 3 states of california. Heard this on the news. Some billionaire wants the state of northern California state of southern Calif and the state of Calif. Cleared the First Hurdle. Would you like to see it happen or you could care less.
The 3 states of California
- Thread starter littleant
- Start date
- Status
For as diverse as California is, it probably should happen so that the inland people actually have representation in government (since the coastal metro areas pretty much run the entire state).
Will it happen? Nah. Why give up power like that?
Puerto Rico has better chances of becoming the 51st state.
Will it happen? Nah. Why give up power like that?
Puerto Rico has better chances of becoming the 51st state.
Well that sure would be a win, win for probably that live in 80% of the land mass of the State. It would change a lot of things in a big hurry.
5-4-3-2-1
Won't happen Constitution would need to be changed..Chances 0%
Won't happen Constitution would need to be changed..Chances 0%
Originally Posted By: Al
Won't happen Constitution would need to be changed..Chances 0%
Hm, don't think so. Texas and California were a Republic before becoming a state, and If I'm not mistaken, we (Texas) can split into multiple states also.
Could be wrong...
Won't happen Constitution would need to be changed..Chances 0%
Hm, don't think so. Texas and California were a Republic before becoming a state, and If I'm not mistaken, we (Texas) can split into multiple states also.
Could be wrong...
It's a good idea; they are 3 entirely different regions.
Originally Posted By: sasilverbullet
Originally Posted By: Al
Won't happen Constitution would need to be changed..Chances 0%
Hm, don't think so. Texas and California were a Republic before becoming a state, and If I'm not mistaken, we (Texas) can split into multiple states also.
Could be wrong...
Legally speaking, yes, Texas could split into "New states of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas" according to Congress's Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. However, I'm not sure if the same provisions were made for California when parts of the state were annexed into the U.S. from Mexico.
Originally Posted By: Al
Won't happen Constitution would need to be changed..Chances 0%
Hm, don't think so. Texas and California were a Republic before becoming a state, and If I'm not mistaken, we (Texas) can split into multiple states also.
Could be wrong...
Legally speaking, yes, Texas could split into "New states of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas" according to Congress's Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. However, I'm not sure if the same provisions were made for California when parts of the state were annexed into the U.S. from Mexico.
California's GDP is just behind Great Britain, almost double Canada. Seems like it could be split in 3 and still be quite viable.
It's certainly not a new idea in California as the basic premise for multiple Californias was trotted out a hundred years ago with the water wars and has had different incarnations since. Independent of the demographic anomaly that California represents to much of the country, I would anticipate this idea to keep going and be both a political and non-political one whether it ever had the chance of becoming reality or not. Power, different demographics/inequality between these areas, and two thirds of the population living from Bakersfield south will perpetuate this idea independent of who's in charge.
Demographically, California has always been different than a lot of the U.S. because in some ways it had as much in common with the Pacific Rim and Mexico as it did with Washington D.C. Texas and California are now surprisingly similar demographically and it would be interesting if something like this took root in a different way there also. IDK, May be it already does?? Maybe "keeping Austin weird" is the same general idea in microcosm.
Demographically, California has always been different than a lot of the U.S. because in some ways it had as much in common with the Pacific Rim and Mexico as it did with Washington D.C. Texas and California are now surprisingly similar demographically and it would be interesting if something like this took root in a different way there also. IDK, May be it already does?? Maybe "keeping Austin weird" is the same general idea in microcosm.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
California's GDP is just behind Great Britain, almost double Canada. Seems like it could be split in 3 and still be quite viable.
Well that may be true but what's their debt? Probably triple that of the two countries you mention.
California's GDP is just behind Great Britain, almost double Canada. Seems like it could be split in 3 and still be quite viable.
Well that may be true but what's their debt? Probably triple that of the two countries you mention.
Think I'll buy a piece of land in the state of Northern California. About 100 miles south of the Oregon boarder. Beautiful country, down to earth folks. Get away from this (edit) -40 winter temps and 9 foot total snow fall.
JHZR2
Staff member
As of now I dont see this as politics per se. Please dont convince otherwise.
There are often discussions of different state arrangements, regional alignments, etc. CA, given its huge economy, might be a good example of a place where these things could be considered. Its for the people of CA to decide, I guess.
It could make sense - its not clear to me what constitutes a state as being too big, in terms of geography or population. But it would add some top-level inefficiencies and added costs.
There are often discussions of different state arrangements, regional alignments, etc. CA, given its huge economy, might be a good example of a place where these things could be considered. Its for the people of CA to decide, I guess.
It could make sense - its not clear to me what constitutes a state as being too big, in terms of geography or population. But it would add some top-level inefficiencies and added costs.
I can't cite my source, but:
California was originally designed to be 3 states.
Texas was originally designed to be 5 states.
There was only 1 Dakota in the original plan.
That'd be 55 states.
Wasn't there a plan for states to match by region resulting in a dozen or so states?
Ecotopia (the wet parts of Oregon, Washington and California
Dixie (parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and maybe northern Florida
Florida (southern, Caribbean part)
Great desert (parts of too many states to list)
Northern Plains
Southern Plains
New England (west to the Housatonic Valley)
Mid-Atlantia (west to the Piedmont)
Appalachia (long)
Great Lakes Surround + up into the Ohio, Mississippi and Misssouri Valleys
Alaska
Hawaii
New York (City + Hudson Valley (east to the Housatonic Valley), NJ, Chesapeake Bay, Pennsylvania)
California was originally designed to be 3 states.
Texas was originally designed to be 5 states.
There was only 1 Dakota in the original plan.
That'd be 55 states.
Wasn't there a plan for states to match by region resulting in a dozen or so states?
Ecotopia (the wet parts of Oregon, Washington and California
Dixie (parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and maybe northern Florida
Florida (southern, Caribbean part)
Great desert (parts of too many states to list)
Northern Plains
Southern Plains
New England (west to the Housatonic Valley)
Mid-Atlantia (west to the Piedmont)
Appalachia (long)
Great Lakes Surround + up into the Ohio, Mississippi and Misssouri Valleys
Alaska
Hawaii
New York (City + Hudson Valley (east to the Housatonic Valley), NJ, Chesapeake Bay, Pennsylvania)
Originally Posted By: sasilverbullet
Originally Posted By: Al
Won't happen Constitution would need to be changed..Chances 0%
Hm, don't think so. Texas and California were a Republic before becoming a state, and If I'm not mistaken, we (Texas) can split into multiple states also.
Could be wrong...
Despite the Bear Republic flag, California was never an independent country. It was acquired directly from Mexico as spoils of the Mexican-American War.
Originally Posted By: Al
Won't happen Constitution would need to be changed..Chances 0%
Hm, don't think so. Texas and California were a Republic before becoming a state, and If I'm not mistaken, we (Texas) can split into multiple states also.
Could be wrong...
Despite the Bear Republic flag, California was never an independent country. It was acquired directly from Mexico as spoils of the Mexican-American War.
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
For as diverse as California is, it probably should happen so that the inland people actually have representation in government (since the coastal metro areas pretty much run the entire state).
Will it happen? Nah. Why give up power like that?
Puerto Rico has better chances of becoming the 51st state.
It would really work against the financial interests of in the inland areas. They benefit from taxes paid by the populated areas, which pays for their roads and services such as hospitals, courthouses, etc.
Certainly when there was talk about a new state of Jefferson, there were proposals to include at least one fairly large populated area such as Redding such that there would be enough of a tax base to provide adequate government services. At least with those particular proposals, the big concern was water rights, and that doesn't necessarily change because existing water rights can be enforced in federal courts, and that the Central Valley Project is a federal water project.
For as diverse as California is, it probably should happen so that the inland people actually have representation in government (since the coastal metro areas pretty much run the entire state).
Will it happen? Nah. Why give up power like that?
Puerto Rico has better chances of becoming the 51st state.
It would really work against the financial interests of in the inland areas. They benefit from taxes paid by the populated areas, which pays for their roads and services such as hospitals, courthouses, etc.
Certainly when there was talk about a new state of Jefferson, there were proposals to include at least one fairly large populated area such as Redding such that there would be enough of a tax base to provide adequate government services. At least with those particular proposals, the big concern was water rights, and that doesn't necessarily change because existing water rights can be enforced in federal courts, and that the Central Valley Project is a federal water project.
Originally Posted By: Al
Won't happen Constitution would need to be changed..Chances 0%
I tend to agree. I wouldn't mind if it did, but this has been tossed around for MANY decades. Last fall I did see a lot of signs along some of the Interstates in Northern Ca. about this happening.
Won't happen Constitution would need to be changed..Chances 0%
I tend to agree. I wouldn't mind if it did, but this has been tossed around for MANY decades. Last fall I did see a lot of signs along some of the Interstates in Northern Ca. about this happening.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
As of now I dont see this as politics per se. Please dont convince otherwise.
There are often discussions of different state arrangements, regional alignments, etc. CA, given its huge economy, might be a good example of a place where these things could be considered. Its for the people of CA to decide, I guess.
It could make sense - its not clear to me what constitutes a state as being too big, in terms of geography or population. But it would add some top-level inefficiencies and added costs.
Well politics would come into it because if there were 2 more states, they'd get an extra 4 senators and I think one of the criticism of the current set up is that the smaller states have much more influence over politics than the larger states.
These breakup talks seem to happen all the time with various states and I don't suppose anything with come of it. Don't remember the last time a state actually broke up.
As of now I dont see this as politics per se. Please dont convince otherwise.
There are often discussions of different state arrangements, regional alignments, etc. CA, given its huge economy, might be a good example of a place where these things could be considered. Its for the people of CA to decide, I guess.
It could make sense - its not clear to me what constitutes a state as being too big, in terms of geography or population. But it would add some top-level inefficiencies and added costs.
Well politics would come into it because if there were 2 more states, they'd get an extra 4 senators and I think one of the criticism of the current set up is that the smaller states have much more influence over politics than the larger states.
These breakup talks seem to happen all the time with various states and I don't suppose anything with come of it. Don't remember the last time a state actually broke up.
As far as economies of scale, it might make more sense to merge a few of the eastern miniature states into neighboring states. However, they'd lose senators and electorial college votes.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Since when would splitting a state up into three be a good idea because "there are three different regions". That is what government and votes are for. Hash out differences with your neighbor and vote on the common concerns.
Not being political, just stating facts. It will never happen. Why? California gets 55 electoral college votes. And they ALWAYS go to the democrat candidate and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. If you split a state up along political boundaries, then most certainly many of those 55 electoral college votes will then go to GOP candidates. Those in power in the state would NOT like to see 15-25 of THEIR electoral college votes, going to the opposite political party.
So while I support the idea, and feel terrible for those stuck in enemy territory with absolutely vile and despicable tyrants for legislatures, it will never happen. Without a civil war.
So while I support the idea, and feel terrible for those stuck in enemy territory with absolutely vile and despicable tyrants for legislatures, it will never happen. Without a civil war.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
