Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Goodbye, California? Tim Draper Proposes a 6-Way Split

timothy posted about a year ago | from the apologies-to-alistair-maclean dept.

Businesses 489

Daniel_Stuckey writes that venture capitalist Tim Draper has mooted a plan "to split California into six separate states, he told Tech Crunch, with Silicon Valley emerging as the richest and most powerful of all. The mockery is already pouring in. Of course a rich tech guru wants Silicon Valley to get its own government, so it can be freed from the dusty laws and regulations of California 1.0. Of course a deep undercurrent of self-aggrandizing narcissism runs through the proposal — only one other state-to-be gets an actual name, (inexplicably, 'Jefferson') and the rest are lazily affixed with topographical descriptors: West, South, Central, and North California...Yes, in shaping his doctrine, Draper has conjured the perfect blend of Seasteading's offshore tech nirvana lawlessness, boilerplate Tea Party antiestablishmentarianism, and good ol' secessionist chutzpah."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Jinx (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754503)

Any mention of 'Splitting up California' is just tempting fate at this point..

Do it (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about a year ago | (#45754505)

I've been looking for an excuse to rearrange the stars.

Re:Do it (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754529)

Its very convenient how his outline for splitting up states, when compared with the voting demographics, would likely give the Republicans 8 US senators and the democrats only 4.

Begging the question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754945)

You are the new king of begging the question.

Next you'll fret that this means less lemon-tart pies will be baked north of the mid-California line or something else equally important and meaningless.

Re:Do it (4, Interesting)

rockout (1039072) | about a year ago | (#45755147)

That seems highly unlikely, if you actually look at the map. California's entire coastline, except for the San Diego area, skews heavily blue (and even San Diego is lightly blue), so the opposite would probably be true - only California 4 (on his map) would likely elect Republican senators. Keep in mind the coasts are also far more heavily populated. So it'd probably be 8-2 the other way.

http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/US_election/figs/CA.png [ncsu.edu]

Re:Do it (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#45755065)

I would say merge the Carolinas, Dakotas & Virginias (-3), and then do the above split of CA. Instead of 6 states, make it 3 - North coast (starting from San Louis Obispo and going right up to OR), South Coast (from Santa Barbara to San Diego) and Inland (Calexico to Eureka). Sacramento would remain the capital of inland CA, make Oakland the capital of the North Coast and Compton the capital of the South Coast. Stars go down to 49, and you can have a 7x7 array, and make the corner a square strip.

Or else redraw a few more state borders and bring the state count up to 64 or down to 32, which would be appropriate for the computer age, since both of those are powers of 2

Re:Do it (2)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#45755095)

Actually, I think it would be best to just get rid of the Senate completely.
It's totally non-functional due to arcane rules and inherently undemocratic since states like Rhode Island and Wyoming (population less than 1 million) get the same number of senators as large states like New York and California.
A parliamentary system would make for a much more functional government.

Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754523)

How about California just becomes it's own damn country and fucks right off.

Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (2)

sir-gold (949031) | about a year ago | (#45754569)

And could they please take Texas and Florida with them?

Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#45754713)

It's a good idea, because California, all by itself, has the 8th largest economy in the whole world. It doesn't need the rest of America.

Maybe Oregon and Washington would like to join it, plus some of the other western states like Nevada. All together, they'd easily be the most economically powerful country on Earth, home of all the major tech industries, and free from the idiocy in Washington (DC; the state should rename itself to eliminate this association) and the east coast states, especially the South.

Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (4, Funny)

NouberNou (1105915) | about a year ago | (#45754837)

Nah California can go fuck itself. You're liberals aren't realistic and you have way too many conservatives.

Signed, Cascadia

Re:Allow me to burn som Karma by saying (2, Informative)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#45755099)

That will be cool.

We would impose an import tariff on all goods leaving California and we will give tax incentives to companies to move to the other 49 states. You will no longer enjoy all that pork from US military bases or contracts. Oh and you will have to pay 100% of your welfare, medicaid, and medicare expenses. Any of that technology that originates from federal grants will move out, and ITAR will prevent any new tech being easily exported to California.

Let's know how it works out.

California is already split .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754535)

California is already split into numerous pieces. Drawing some lines and formalizing it will allow each of those pieces to govern themselves as they see fit and allow people to stop bitching at each other for tromping on each others "rights".

Re:California is already split .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754653)

Too bad these proposed lines don't represent genuine cultural or geographic divisions. It's pretty easy to split California into six pieces in ways that make far more sense than this guy has done.

Re:California is already split .... (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#45754731)

6 pieces is really too much, I think. A better plan is to start with the 38 States [tjc.com] proposal from the 70s, and update it a bit for the times.

Re:California is already split .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45755023)

... and update it a bit for the times.

the 70s were just 40 years ago. so i think i see the flaw in your plan.

Re:California is already split .... (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#45755069)

Things have changed in 40 years. Not that much, but some: just look at the populations of cities in the rust-belt states then and now. They've shrunk. Southern states (east and west) have gained population. Phoenix, for example, is much, much larger than it was in the 70s.

Also, the 38-state plan was made by some college class. It was based on some really good principles and ideas, such as making sure no metro areas cross state lines, however it surely didn't involve actually going around the country and asking people everywhere which nearby areas they'd like to be in the same state as, or not. A real reorganization needs to have a lot more stakeholder input than that.

Re:California is already split .... (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#45755141)

I was noticing that the boundaries seem arbitrary. For instance, his area 2 goes from the coast north of San Francisco to the Nevada state line. This area incorporates at least three very different cultures. At the coast, Marin County should really be part of the San Francisco, Silicon Valley area. Heading West through the Central Valley to Sacramento is really a completely different area (primarily farming). Then you get to the Sierra Nevada Range which is a third area which is completely different culturally and economically.

Re:California is already split .... (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#45754709)

exactly, Smaller governments are easier to maintain. I am all for more choice in the country. I would love if the same thing happened in NY, make NYC and long island into their own states and leave upstate NY as its own state. Where I live, the hudson valley we pay more in taxes and get less back than northern NY or the city all while we have to worry about our bridges 50 miles 75 miles north of the city tolls going up for one example, when the money is being used down in NYC not up here.

I am a firm believer in "think local first" If we could keep more of our own money in our own communities rather than giving it to the feds and state to ship all over the country and world we would all be better off

Let California secede from the US. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754539)

Just make California secede from the rest of the US.
Problem solved. Those californian tea party republicans can jump ship to Arizona, Washington, Oregon or New Mexico.
As for silicon valley, just offshore them to Texas. They'd feel at home.

There's a sizable (5, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#45754623)

number of people [google.com] that would like to see the South go. They take in more federal dollars than they give while electing Representatives that campaign against receiving those dollars. They're largely the reason the rest of the Country can't have socialized medicine.

Personally I can't see abandoning them, but then again I think the point of civilization isn't to protect property but to improve the lives of everyone. That's a fundamental philosophy that a lot disagree with.

Re:There's a sizable (2, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year ago | (#45754781)

Personally I can't see abandoning them

Why not? If the voters in those states fundamentally disagree with you (and most of the rest of the country) on basic matters such as healthcare and other important factors, why do you want to keep them as part of your country so you can continue to butt heads with them? Some European countries have had socialized medicine for over a century now. We're not going to get there any time soon as long as we have so much diversity of political thought in this country.

That's a fundamental philosophy that a lot disagree with

Right, and as long as you keep those people in your country instead of letting them go away and form their own country, you're going to continue fighting with them over these fundamental points of philosophy, and nothing will improve.

Why is it that the liberals bitch so much about conservatives and their regressive political views, but then when the conservatives propose removing themselves from the equation so the liberals can do whatever they want, the liberals start calling them "traitors"? It's always the liberals who are most anti-secession, when really, they'd have the most to gain from it. Liberals gripe and complain about the Southern states taking too much in tax money and not contributing much (because the South's economy sucks, quite frankly; it always has), but then when the Southerners start talking about seceding, the liberals are the first to bash this idea, call them traitors, and talk about how important unity is.

If you think unity is so important, then you need to stop complaining about the political opinions of those who you refuse to allow to leave, and you need to pass more laws to keep them happy (such as legalizing widespread fracking, banning abortion and contraceptives, making Christianity the official state religion, etc.).

Re:There's a sizable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754943)

Well for starters, we don't want to have to clean up after yet another 3rd world nation on our doorstep that you'll turn yourselves into after 2 decades. Or the inevitable Latino Holocaust you'll cause. Or World War 3.

Re:There's a sizable (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754999)

Simple: The conservatives earn the money, the liberals spend it.

Lets take Texas, home of the law where if one has more than four dildos, it is 2-10 years in prison. It is a deep red state with gun ranges a part of the culture.

This state is a driving force for the US economy, crime is low, and there is plenty of land to buy one's own place if they decided to retire to a quiet spot. What drives this point home is all the lefties from California lining up in their Priuses, full ironic beards in various states of un-trim, homing in for Austin east-side apartments and hoping they make it big at SXSW with their acoustic guitar or maybe try to get another degree at UT. If a red state is so bad, then why is there a wholesale California exodus, bringing California problems and California crime (Travis and Williamson crime is up 20% in a year's time) to Texas?

The blue states can sit back, be smug, and allow only the gangbangers to be armed. Their time has past. It is the red states that drive the economy these days. Even Silicon Valley is stagnant. Seen any new companies doing anything other than playing the advertiser income game, and try to find more revenue streams from cat pictures? Contrast this to other countries who are actually getting stuff done, like rovers on the moon.

Re:There's a sizable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45755049)

If you think unity is so important, then you need to stop complaining about the political opinions of those who you refuse to allow to leave, and you need to pass more laws to keep them happy (such as legalizing widespread fracking, banning abortion and contraceptives, making Christianity the official state religion, etc.).

have you ever spent time in the south? i have never in the 8 years i've been here heard
anyone talk about secession. this whole post (and the other's you've posted) seem like
baiting to me. this post should be -1 uninformed, baiting.

Re:There's a sizable (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about a year ago | (#45754859)

number of people [google.com] that would like to see the South go. They take in more federal dollars than they give while electing Representatives that campaign against receiving those dollars. They're largely the reason the rest of the Country can't have socialized medicine. Personally I can't see abandoning them, but then again I think the point of civilization isn't to protect property but to improve the lives of everyone. That's a fundamental philosophy that a lot disagree with.

Noble of ya.

I'd go for that experiment. I know who'd I'd bet on, but whatever ... why not give it a try?

Define "improve" (1, Insightful)

Mspangler (770054) | about a year ago | (#45754997)

"the point of civilization isn't to protect property but to improve the lives of everyone. That's a fundamental philosophy that a lot disagree with."

I might well disagree, depending on who defines "improve the lives of everyone". The world has plenty of unhappy experience with those who are convinced they can run other peoples lives better than they can.

What about IP laws if they secede then (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#45754717)

What about IP laws if they secede then they may lose rights.

Re:Let California secede from the US. (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45754757)

Wouldn't secession be illegal?

More generally, wouldn't any movement to secede be considered sedition, and thus subject those involved in it to several years in prison?

Re:Let California secede from the US. (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year ago | (#45754893)

Not to mention the idea is entirely retarded and the product of depraved minds?

Fail. (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45754541)

Of course a rich tech guru wants Silicon Valley to get its own government, so it can be freed from the dusty laws and regulations of

Replace "tech guru" with "cotton plantation owner" and suddenly it all makes sense.

Re:Fail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754765)

Privatization worked wonders with Detroit. Special interest groups should definately form their own society in order to maximize exploitation of the planet, the human beings, animals and all the resources they own.

On the downturn, capitalism will clearly prove that all the fundamentals matters.

Captcha: crafty

Huh? (2)

khasim (1285) | about a year ago | (#45754555)

Though he's probably proposing it for all the wrong reasons, Draper's terrible plan is premised on a totally salient criticismâ"it's absurd that California only sends two senators to Washington when it is by far the country's most populous state.

He's never heard of the "House of Representatives"?

Or is he just unhappy that each state gets an equal vote in the Senate?

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754611)

Or is he just unhappy that each state gets an equal vote in the Senate?

Why should the 38 million people in California get the same number of representatives as the half a million people in Wyoming? And don't claim the founding fathers meant it to be this way. The founding fathers did not have people elect senators: The current system was implemented by an amendment to the constitution.

Re:Huh? (1)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#45754641)

Correct, the original system was two bodies, one popularly elected and with proportional representation... and the other elected by the government of the state.

The answer is not giving more senators to more populace states, it's either to abolish the senate (ala unicameral legislature in Nebraska) or repeal the 17th amendment.

Alas to most it does not strike them as odd that the government of Germany, France & Zimbabwe (amongst others) have official representatives in Washington DC... but the government of the state of California does not.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754921)

What are Senators and House of Representatives members if not official representatives of California in Washington, DC?

Re:Huh? (1)

gavron (1300111) | about a year ago | (#45754969)

Dirtbags who represent the special interests that pay them.

Re:Huh? (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#45755005)

Or we could, you know, leave it THE HELL ALONE. OK, I think it would be better going back to the original process wherby the senators were appointed, but what we have is better than some dumbass plan like you propose.

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754665)

Congress is composed of two arms, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is designed to give the states equal voting power. The House of Representatives is designed to give the people roughly equal representation.

Why is this so hard to understand? Did you skip that day of 8th grade US Government?

Re:Huh? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#45754843)

Which is why we have the house, where the number of reps are in relation to the number of people in the state.

Senate != House (1)

Mspangler (770054) | about a year ago | (#45754965)

The House is where population is directly represented. The Senate is where States are directly represented. The Senate was supposed to protect the Sovereignty of States (which function was seriously harmed by the 17th Amendment) and limit the ability of a tyranny of the majority. I.e. the lightly populated states could combine forces to stop a majority in the House, which will inevitably be controlled by the big cities.

The interesting thing at the moment is that the Senate is more controlled by the big cities. (Seattle has two Senators, the rest of Washington gets ignored in that chamber.) Since not all House districts have a major city, they still listen to the countryside on occasion.

Re:Huh? (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | about a year ago | (#45754627)

Apparently he's not familiar with the Connecticut Compromise [wikipedia.org] . We've been through this before. (Well, we haven't, but previous Americans have.)

Jefferson gets a name (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754557)

Because it's a preexisting movement: http://www.jeffersonstate.com/

Lets to the opposite and merge (1)

Port-0 (301613) | about a year ago | (#45754563)

I think we should do the opposite, and merge all 50 states into one single one. Therefore eliminating all the duplication of government, and provide one streamlined service for everything. That would be a much better direction to go.

Re:Lets to the opposite and merge (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754631)

Government doesn't want that and any forwarding thinking citizen should hate the idea too. There is no way for a single body government to effectively govern a mass of people of such diverse backgrounds and over such a diverse landscape effectively. Unless you have them do much less than they do today and let the people do for themselves again...

Re:Lets to the opposite and merge (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year ago | (#45755123)

A single top-down government would indeed be terrible. On the other hand the state boundaries that we have now are fairly arbitrary and were the product of events that occurred long ago, in an entirely different economy and an entirely different lifestyle. It's not clear that they retain the value they once did in terms of the "representative" part of representative democracy.

I would suggest that geography isn't, and hasn't been, a driving force in self-identification in this country for quite some time. Urban, suburban and rural seem to make better political boundaries than rivers, mountains and natural resources right now.

Re:Lets to the opposite and merge (4, Funny)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about a year ago | (#45754727)

By George, I think you've hit on exactly the right solution! Merge all states, so that they are a single entity. That's brilliant!

Now, what could we call this entity? The Grouped Together Localities? The Aggregated Places Between Mexico and Canada? The Strongly Connected States of America?

Well, I'm sure we'll come up with something.

Re:Lets to the opposite and merge (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#45754853)

That would be a horrible idea. The federal government is already too big and too involved in the day to day lives of americans. What is good for the people in NY and cali, is not whats best for those in alaska or north dakota.

Re:Lets to the opposite and merge (2)

Goody (23843) | about a year ago | (#45755127)

When you see stuff like Texas editing school books or North Carolina allowing cousins to marry, but not gay cousins, the states don't know much better than the federal government what is best for their citizens. We might as well either combine it all into one piece and pool the disfunctionality, or break the country into pieces that better resemble the regional needs of modern America.

Re:Lets to the opposite and merge (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#45755033)

Since you boldly make the proposal, I will counter with a better one. Disband the US and let the States be what their name says they are: independent states.

I fear neither of our proposals will be very popular.

And each part takes a proportional share of debt? (2, Insightful)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about a year ago | (#45754565)

It could be argued that Silicon Valley has benefitted the most from the California taxpayer. This proposal doesn't sound too bad as long as Old California's debt is distributed to the new states in a equitable way. The problem would be defining equitable.

There is a really small but similar sentiment in Illinois too. The people who live in rural Illinois feel like the people who live in Chicago and the suburban areas surrounding Chicago disproportionately affect Illinois politics. They feel that the state would be better without Chicago.

Re:And each part takes a proportional share of deb (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#45754607)

There is a really small but similar sentiment in Illinois too. The people who live in rural Illinois feel like the people who live in Chicago and the suburban areas surrounding Chicago disproportionately affect Illinois politics. They feel that the state would be better without Chicago.

I can actually understand that sentiment. But the California equivalent would be Central Valley or far northern secessionists. Silicon Valley can't really make the same kind of argument, because it is already very influential in California politics. Of course, it shares that influence with Los Angeles rather than having it entirely to itself, but the Bay Area is one of the state's main political power bases.

up of michigan whats to be on it's own as well (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#45754741)

the up of michigan whats to be on it's own as well.

make long inland / NY city into it's own state.

Also cut up Texas into as many as five states,

Re:up of michigan whats to be on it's own as well (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#45754847)

Cutting up Texas doesn't really resolve most of the political issues, though. There isn't a huge regional difference in attitudes, but more of an urban/suburban/rural split. The big Texas cities (Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas) are all center-left to varying degrees, while the suburbs are center-right, and the rural areas are hard-right.

Re:And each part takes a proportional share of deb (2)

bgalbrecht (920100) | about a year ago | (#45754783)

I think you'll find this sentiment in the agricultural areas of most states that have a lot of agricultural area and a few large (1 million +) metropolitan areas, as the metro areas are usually much more liberal than the agricultural areas. Their primary issues are often quite different also. Look at North Carolina, which lumps most of the liberals into a district that is Charlotte, Raleigh, and the interstate highway between them.

How about just *less* Federal Government power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754567)

Forget increasing Senators, and simply stop giving away states powers to the federal government in the first place.

It's good to marginalize and isolate hipsters. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754575)

This would actually be quite good for California, in my opinion. The more isolated the high-tech hipsters are, the better. They are a mixed blessing, at best. While they bring some financial benefit to the state, they also bring themselves, which happens to be quite detrimental to Californian society at large. They surely aren't the pioneers who build the original Silicon Valley back in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm talking about the real Silicon Valley, where real products of value were designed and manufactured, not just the rampant collection and monetization of private data that we see today.

The hipsters are basically Baby Boomers Lite. This isn't completely surprising, given how many of them are the children of Boomers. They've inherited the same sense of overinflated self worth, the same sense of extreme (yet undeserved) entitlement, and the same smugness that their parents wrought upon California in the 1960s and 1970s.

The hipsters are a stain on the rest of California. The public resentment is there, too. Nobody likes how they've driven up the price of rent in San Francisco and the surrounding cities. Just look at how their private buses were attacked recently in nearby Oakland. Normal Californians are fed up with the hipsters and their very negative effect on society.

Isolating these hipsters to the Bay Area would be quite a good thing to do, at least given the circumstances. While we'd have to write off San Francisco, one of the most historic cities in the United States, it's already quite inaccessible to non-hipsters and other normal people. At least then these hipsters would be contained with a geographically-small area, and the rest of California could prevent them and their rot from leeching out into the surrounding new states.

This comes up ever so many years... (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about a year ago | (#45754577)

California is such a large state that it ends up having being ruled by the whims of the people of LA. Everything from gun laws, to environmental regulations, to labor laws... or put another way the only reason it's a blue state is because of LA. The number of counties hat end up being 'red counties' is fairly substantial. But they usually get overruled by their opposition. Of course IS how representative democracy works... but at the level of population containing with wildly different political ideologues as you have in California you start to have a good example of 'the tyranny of the majority'.

Re:This comes up ever so many years... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#45754699)

California is such a large state that it ends up having being ruled by the whims of the people of LA. Everything from gun laws, to environmental regulations, to labor laws... or put another way the only reason it's a blue state is because of LA. The number of counties hat end up being 'red counties' is fairly substantial. But they usually get overruled by their opposition.

Of course IS how representative democracy works... but at the level of population containing with wildly different political ideologues as you have in California you start to have a good example of 'the tyranny of the majority'.

Except for the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th....

You get the idea.

Re:This comes up ever so many years... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#45754871)

The same is true in almost every state. The city and metro areas are all heavy populated and heavy blue. The majority of the state that is not city tend to lean red.

Good (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#45754585)

This is hardly an idea without precedent would better serve the needs of the constituents while be very much in the spirit of the Constitution. Virginia, New York and Massachusetts split and gave us a handful of other states. When states become two politically oriented in one direction for only a given geographical ares while ignoring the wishes and values of the other states they can and should split.

The Constitution was designed to balance the power of the people so that you didn't have any one area with too large of an influence over the others. It was then designed to ensure all areas would have equal representation in the Senate. It was one of the most careful balances of power ever crafted and has served as a model for countless other governments ever since.

When people feel the need to systematically disregard the political views of a given portion of their constituency they no longer deserve to have that constituency as they no longer represent their needs. California, Texas, New York, Illinois and a couple of other states have long areas on both the left and the right that have systematically ignored large portions of their population for many years.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754729)

Bring it!

The Texas Articles of Annexation include a provision to divide it up into five states.

We will have our ten Senators, please.

Re:Good (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45754805)

This is hardly an idea without precedent would better serve the needs of the constituents while be very much in the spirit of the Constitution. Virginia, New York and Massachusetts split and gave us a handful of other states. When states become two politically oriented in one direction for only a given geographical ares while ignoring the wishes and values of the other states they can and should split.

I'm not sure it was due to political orientation so much as the more basic "There's more people in these here hills, and we ought to have representatives for them to talk to less than a week away by horse."

That isn't to say your premise is invalid -- those people's interests are going unrepresented and splitting them off may better address those needs. But to be honest, New York and California both need to be punched in the face repeatedly by the feds, then bent over and hammered in the ass until they stop trying to force the rest of the country to acceed to their fucked up laws.

Re:Good (2)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about a year ago | (#45755059)

Fragmented local governments make less and less sense as travel speeds increase and communication costs drop. I think that was already evident when the last 20 states were admitted to the union. Land area of states, and even counties, have trended upwards, and not just because populations were small.

If you fragment the tax base into little local communities, the poor stay poor. It's been a good thing for the "natural splendor" of Arkansas, but mostly, I think we're all better off it we take more even care of everyone, rather than ignoring the poor neighbors over the other side of some line on a map.

California is too large (4, Interesting)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a year ago | (#45754605)

The only reason it is this big is because it was established at a time when the population was MUCH lower. Were you to do the same thing in the east coast but in reverse, you might get all of new england as ONE state.

Now do you understand? California is much too big.

The government is almost indifferent to voter opinion because they can always play one part of the state off the other part. Which means they never have to do anything anyone wants. They just mommy/daddy the whole thing and then lie when that doesn't work.

Look. It needs to split because its unweldy, inherently corrupt, and incapable of serving the local needs of its residents.

Everything revolves around Sacramento which is the least consequential portion of the state BESIDES for the politics. Its our version of Washington DC. What does DC do? Tell people what to do. Does it produce anything? Nope. Does it create anything? Nope. It just collects the taxes and decides what to do with it all.

Genius ideas like our "bullet" train which as everyone knows is a giant fiasco... which we knew it would be from the start... because a bullet train in California makes about as much sense as a beach resort on the moon.

But it sounds good to the twits in Sacramento so whatever.

Look, you don't like his plan to split the state... Fine. It doesn't really matter what the plan is so long as its reasonable. We just need a more local government in california. A government that actually lives where we live and cares about us because they're ACTUALLY our neighbors. Sacramento doesn't care about San Diego. It doesn't care about the Imperial Valley. It only cares about Los Angeles because that is where most of the votes come from. But it only cares about it in so far as those votes are concerned. Etc.

Too big. Split it. Even in half isn't enough. It needs to be broken into something like three to six pieces.

Re:California is too large (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754637)

I can't tell - is this comment against centralizing power in the federal government, or supporting it? Hmm...

Re:California is too large (4, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a year ago | (#45754977)

No, I want the state split into smaller states which would maintain their existing limited independence from the federal government.

The feds really have the same problem. They didn't used to have this much power over people or states. It was a much more limited government. And as a result, the territory was manageable because the government was focused on a short list of core responsibilities. Today, its too complicated and the federal government frequently interferes with local government matters.

This leads to the federal government making policies that make sense in one place but don't make sense somewhere else. This is not because they couldn't make different policies for each place but because they have neither the time nor inclination to care to do it. This introduces inefficiencies, unhappiness, and unfairness as some areas get what they want while others do not... for no apparent reason besides that's what the law or some faceless bureaucrat says.

Look. We need state governments and we need a federal government. But for our democracy to survive the government must be responsive to the people and accountable for their actions.

As the government gets larger it accomplishes neither.

By taking on too much territory, the government can't focus on particulars and instead has to make one size fits all rules. These serve no one well.

And by taking on so much territory they acquire a large number of diverse voters with contradictory wishes. And that means that the government can effectively give no one what they want simply by vacillation between one faction and the next. Which often means they don't even try. They just do what the politicians want to do and then dither when that makes people unhappy.

Ultimately, if you value democracy, you are against mass centralization. It renders your vote meaningless.

Re:California is too large (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754703)

If you split California, then Texas and Florida have to be split too.

Re:California is too large (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754759)

Why?

Re:California is too large (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754813)

Because this is a stupid discussion and you're kind of an idiot for even bringing it up.

Re:California is too large (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754937)

Either that or you're one of the endless stream of cowardly conservative blowhards whit an equally endless stream of ideas on how to chop up California's voting districts to disenfranchise liberal voters.

See also: End electoral college only in liberal states. See gerrymandering. See decades of republican obstructionism using the (thankfully now ended) 2/3rs majority rule to crash the California economy.

The only people that want to split the sate are right-wing nutbags and tax dodging libertarian crooks.

Re:California is too large (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year ago | (#45754981)

"The government is almost indifferent to voter opinion because they can always play one part of the state off the other part. Which means they never have to do anything anyone wants. They just mommy/daddy the whole thing and then lie when that doesn't work.

Look. It needs to split because its unweldy, inherently corrupt, and incapable of serving the local needs of its residents."

I agree entirely that CA could be split into at least 2 more manageable states.
Then again, I'd point out that there are few arguments in favor of this that wouldn't apply exactly and perfectly well to the FEDERAL government and US regions/states.

Re:California is too large (1)

spasm (79260) | about a year ago | (#45754993)

You do realize the 'idiots in Sacramento' spend most of their time living and working in their home districts and only go to Sac to represent their district's interests while the legislature is in session?

The State of 'Jefferson' (3, Informative)

Noishkel (3464121) | about a year ago | (#45754613)

It really should be pointed out that this guy's idea is in no way new. There has been calls for breaking up California into a number of smaller states for years. Mostly for the reason I put into my previous post. In short: having a very large population being nominally controlled by the whims of LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state) [wikipedia.org]

No regulations (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754617)

For those of you who haven't been out there, when you walk along the streams, you will see signs that say "DO NOT DRINK FROM THE STREAM!".

Why?

Because they are heavily polluted.

From what?

Silicone Valley companies that operated before our environmental laws existed.

Tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org] indeed.

Business people are too irresponsible not to be regulated.

weird proposed boundaries (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#45754619)

A split that puts Marin in a different state from SF doesn't make a lot of sense, considering how much commuting goes across the Golden Gate. The greater SF Bay Area should at least be in the same state.

It should be split in 2 (1)

koan (80826) | about a year ago | (#45754633)

It should be North and South, split it just North of Los Angeles.

Re:It should be split in 2 (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#45754973)

Hell no. S. Cal has to take Bakersfield and Fresno.

There is another way to do it (3, Interesting)

satch89450 (186046) | about a year ago | (#45754671)

I've lived in a number of areas of the country. The common political element that rose above all the rest is the differences between the large cities and the rural areas. So, instead of a split by area, make each large city -- San Francisco/San Jose, Los Angeles/Hollywood -- its own state. (What to do about Sacremento? Is it a city or a condition as the State capitol?) Then City interests could be served by the City States, and the rest of the state with its agriculture base would be able to set policies and law for their own.

Other states/areas could be split the same way: Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington DC area, Michigin (peal Detroit from the rest of the State), New York/New Jersey/Connecticut...and the list goes on. We could combine small states into large states -- think Providence Rhode Island versus the rest of the State.

I'm not sure the Democrats would go for this.

Jefferson not inexplicable (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754687)

Jefferson was proposed for parts of southern Oregon and northern California as far back as 1941, according to Wikipedia. I've seen a sign for the State of Jefferson Chamber of Commerce along I-5 somewhere in that area.

Welcome to the Six-Way California (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754695)

Such a set of states (such a set of states)
Such a lovely face

A Monumentally Stupid Idea (1)

buddhaunderthetree (318870) | about a year ago | (#45754719)

The US already has too many political subdivisions. We need to combine states into larger political entities (12-15 large states) rather than split the existing ones up.

Re:A Monumentally Stupid Idea (2, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#45755001)

why would you want to put people who disagree on the way of living together instead of allowing them to be free to live as they wish in their own smaller states??

Jefferson (3, Interesting)

SkOink (212592) | about a year ago | (#45754761)

No comment on whether or not the state of Jefferson would ever be able to support itself without the rest of California, but Tim Draper didn't pull that particular state out of the ether. I have some parents that used to live up in North State, and the hill folk there love the idea of Jefferson.

They even have a website: http://www.jeffersonstate.com/ [jeffersonstate.com]

what level of government? (1)

Mspangler (770054) | about a year ago | (#45755109)

"No comment on whether or not the state of Jefferson would ever be able to support itself without the rest of California,"

Support itself at what level of government meddling? Jefferson probably would not be able to support the level of intrusive and all-encompassing supervision, nor provide the level of financial support to it's citizens that is in vogue at UC Berkeley. But it should be able to provide the level of services that its citizens actually feel they need.

Trivial case, do they need a formal Animal Control Department, or is the shotgun in the closet adequate to the task?

Why stop there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754789)

Kick california out of the USA. Oh sure they can't really secede. That's not allowed. But how about we kick them out...

They use up more federal cash than they have brought in since the gold rush. Their policys are insane. Their big brother labeling EVERYTHING WILL GIVE YOU CANCER is stupid. For most purposes it's already it's own country there.

So how about it. Just kick them out. Lets see how they do without the usa.

Heck we can even let puerto rico in as an offical state at the same time. So we stay at 50.

Really just swap their positions. Calif is now a us territory. puerto rico is a state.

Re:Why stop there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754851)

Kick california out of the USA. Oh sure they can't really secede. That's not allowed. But how about we kick them out...

They use up more federal cash than they have brought in since the gold rush. Their policys are insane. Their big brother labeling EVERYTHING WILL GIVE YOU CANCER is stupid. For most purposes it's already it's own country there.

So how about it. Just kick them out. Lets see how they do without the usa.

Heck we can even let puerto rico in as an offical state at the same time. So we stay at 50.

Really just swap their positions. Calif is now a us territory. puerto rico is a state.

You do understand that California by itself is the 8th economy in the world. And that by seceding those who lose are the other 49 states. Just giving you a reality check on the situation. Texas or Florida seceding wouldn't really be as disastrous as California going its own way.

Parent is so WRONG: (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year ago | (#45755133)

1) CA has a larger economy than most other nations on earth.
2) CA pays more to the federal government than it gets back. (something people who bitch a lot never bother to look up.)
3) CA pays more to the federal government than any other state.

I think they should split up or change how senators are allocated because it's totally moronic that small nothing states are on a fully equal footing with much larger states. Senators have too much power too... which made far more sense when they were picked by state government and not by popular vote, as the founders intended (they also didn't intend House seats to be capped.)

Biased summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754839)

Why don't you just post the real story and leave out the fucking idiotic editorial by some unimportant asshole? We're quite capable of making our own assessment of the plan. /. editor fail.

similar issue in the midwest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45754841)

Chicago should be split from the rest of Illinois because that one city has little to nothing in common with the rest of the state, politically.

What people are really like (3, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#45754879)

I've often said that when times get tough, you find out what people are really like; when times are good and everyone has plenty, then it's easy to be nice, and courteous, and generous, but when times get tough, you find out who's really like that, and who's just been putting on a false face. In this case what we discover from tough times is who's actually smart, and who's actually dumb as a box of rocks. Splitting up California would wreck havoc with everyone in the former State, and would likely throw the entire U.S. into chaos, and all for the greed and lust for power of (excuse my using an over-used metaphor) the 1%. What they'd actually be doing is very transparent: Leave behind the poorer parts of the former California, so the rich don't have to be "burdened" by them anymore. For the northernmost parts of the State, you may as well just merge it with Oregon in that case, so you can have one larger state full of poor people living in relatively rural areas, all without anywhere near enough jobs to keep them all housed, clothed, and fed. Give the central valley a new spanish name, so the people who live and work there, working the fields, will feel more at home. I don't think I need to go on, you all get the picture, probably without my help in the first place. Of course like all rich despots this wouldn't go like they planned, the northern State could cut off all the water they've been sending to the south and hold it for ransom, jacking the price way up, and the central state could make the food they're growing so expensive that even the richest would be shocked at their grocery bill.

This guy needs to be slapped.

Well, at least... (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#45754891)

SV has successful industry and a tax base and some hope of supporting itself. As opposed to the blithering morons who want to secede and form North Colorado (or Metherado as one wag said) who apparently have no idea who is actually paying for their schools and roads and police...

NY/NJ/CT (1)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about a year ago | (#45754897)

So when will we see the greater NYC area turned into a single state?

The trend towards devolution and smaller, more responsive states is brewing in Europe, so it's no surprise it's also happening here. Is it really democracy when your elected leaders are hundreds of miles away?

Wagering Game (1)

retroworks (652802) | about a year ago | (#45754913)

"Sir, I'll see your 8 Californias, and raise you 13 Vermonts."

Pontificating about jerrymandering states isn't really "newsworthy" if there are no real stakes. If it were actually feasible to jerrymander Senate seats (as can be done for the House of Representatives at the state government level), other states would copy it, which is exactly why it would never happen.

debt (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | about a year ago | (#45754923)

So long as these states are jointly and severally liable for all the debt California has rung up so far, I've no objection. (For future debt, they're on their own - and I'd avoid buying bonds issued by most of 'em.)

Too bad he didn't give the rest numbers (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#45754927)

An unintentional Code Geass reference would have knocked me out of my chair!

Makes sense (1)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | about a year ago | (#45754959)

Can't speak for his particular proposal (I haven't looked at it), but the idea of splitting up California has been around for years, and makes a lot of sense. It's far larger and more diverse than most other states, and that makes it really hard to govern. You basically have the SF bay megalopolis (with more population than most other states), the LA/San Diego megalopolis (ditto), the central valley (sparsely populated but with enormous agricultural wealth), and huge rural areas that in many cases don't want to have anything to do with the cities.

This also would gain California much more influence in the federal government (more senators, more electoral votes).

Welcum to Amurrika! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45755009)

Ah yes. Selfishness, terminal narcissism, endless wealth and stupidity determining the future. What could go wrong with that?

The 1% should be separated from the 99% (1, Insightful)

Rick934 (3003359) | about a year ago | (#45755113)

In a prison-type way.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?