Other Resources The Political Joe » Splitting CA in 3 Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2018-04-12 8:35 AM

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: Splitting CA in 3
"Tim Draper, who made his money through Hotmail and Skype, has gathered 600,000 signatures supporting the change – way above the 364,000 needed."

"Providing the state authorities agree the signatures are genuine a referendum on the issue will be held this November alongside other mid-term elections."


I think this is a great idea. CA is too big and (electorally) powerful.


2018-04-12 8:56 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

you do realize that this would make it more electorally (and congressionally) powerful right?

2018-04-12 9:23 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Originally posted by dmiller5

you do realize that this would make it more electorally (and congressionally) powerful right?

You do realize that the biggest reason for wanting to do this is so the HUGE red part of that state gets a voice, right?  All of my wife's family live's there, and it's where she was born and raised......they're sick of the liberal politics of their state and some of them are very involved in the initiative.

2018-04-12 9:26 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

well that would depend how you split it

 

the same can be said in red states like texas, have you seen the lines around austin

2018-04-12 9:33 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3
Originally posted by Rogillio

"Tim Draper, who made his money through Hotmail and Skype, has gathered 600,000 signatures supporting the change – way above the 364,000 needed."

"Providing the state authorities agree the signatures are genuine a referendum on the issue will be held this November alongside other mid-term elections."


I think this is a great idea. CA is too big and (electorally) powerful.

This will actually increase their power by giving them 6 senators instead of 2. As far as effects on the house, hard to say how that would shake out as it will depend on how lines are drawn. Overall, given the current and future demographics of that state, I would not say this would likely be a good thing for the GOP.
2018-04-12 9:44 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3
So CA has 55 electoral votes and it's winner take all. Presumably if they are divided in 3 they would still have a total of 55 but each of the 3 new states would have a portion of those 55 total. So then the conservative parts of the state will have a voice.


2018-04-12 9:57 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Do you guys not understand that this entire initiative is to give conservatives in the state a voice??

2018-04-12 9:57 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Originally posted by Rogillio So CA has 55 electoral votes and it's winner take all. Presumably if they are divided in 3 they would still have a total of 55 but each of the 3 new states would have a portion of those 55 total. So then the conservative parts of the state will have a voice.

they would not still have 55, you get an electoral vote for each congressional seat, that means there would be at least a total of 59.  There may in fact be up to 3 more depending on the districting as the districts in california have more people in them than small population states.  the electoral college favors the conservative party at this point, if you look at straight population distribution (or the popular vote) the democrats would have won 4 of the last 5 elections instead of 2.

 

2018-04-12 9:59 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Originally posted by dmiller5

well that would depend how you split it

 

the same can be said in red states like texas, have you seen the lines around austin

Hell, I'm for splitting the entire country up.  The more contentious this all gets the more I realize I have very little in common with liberals anymore.  I'd just as soon not have to listen to any of it. 

2018-04-12 10:45 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Rogillio So CA has 55 electoral votes and it's winner take all. Presumably if they are divided in 3 they would still have a total of 55 but each of the 3 new states would have a portion of those 55 total. So then the conservative parts of the state will have a voice.

they would not still have 55, you get an electoral vote for each congressional seat, that means there would be at least a total of 59.  There may in fact be up to 3 more depending on the districting as the districts in california have more people in them than small population states.  the electoral college favors the conservative party at this point, if you look at straight population distribution (or the popular vote) the democrats would have won 4 of the last 5 elections instead of 2.

 




The electoral college favors states with fewer people. It is designed to keep the population centers from running rough shod over more rural areas. We are NOT a democracy where the majority rules. We are a represented republic and even minorities have a voice.

Big population centers have to rely on the gubment more so than people in rural areas so they all lean liberal.

Bottom line in CA is the rural areas will at least get some electoral votes. Lest just say they divide in 3 and one state is very red, one is very blue and one is purple. Say the read get 10% of the electoral votes, the blue gets 70% and the purple get 20%. The blue would get 40 electoral votes, red 6 and toss-up of the other 12.

Give GOP a voice in CA and that is long over due.
2018-04-12 11:09 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

I would bet a large sum of money that this will never happen, but the reason for doing it is most definitely to aid the red part of the state of CA.  Geographically, CA is far redder than it is blue, but population wise it's far more blue due to LA, San Fran, San Diego, etc.
As was mentioned it would give 4 additional senators and they would quite likely be more GOP than DNC, but as mentioned it depends where the lines are drawn.  Pretty much everything I've seen is most definitely drawing the lines very red though.
As for the House of Representatives, it likely wouldn't change a ton because there are already GOP congressman from the CA red areas.  Gerrymandering may create a few more blue than there should be, so could be a slight shift, but likely not significant.



2018-04-12 12:29 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by dmiller5

well that would depend how you split it

 

the same can be said in red states like texas, have you seen the lines around austin

Hell, I'm for splitting the entire country up.  The more contentious this all gets the more I realize I have very little in common with liberals anymore.  I'd just as soon not have to listen to any of it. 



I agree,I think that we should go to one-person, one-vote for all elections. I think the winner-takes-all in the primary and general elections is BS.
2018-04-12 9:20 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Rogillio So CA has 55 electoral votes and it's winner take all. Presumably if they are divided in 3 they would still have a total of 55 but each of the 3 new states would have a portion of those 55 total. So then the conservative parts of the state will have a voice.

they would not still have 55, you get an electoral vote for each congressional seat, that means there would be at least a total of 59.  There may in fact be up to 3 more depending on the districting as the districts in california have more people in them than small population states.  the electoral college favors the conservative party at this point, if you look at straight population distribution (or the popular vote) the democrats would have won 4 of the last 5 elections instead of 2.

 

The electoral college favors states with fewer people. It is designed to keep the population centers from running rough shod over more rural areas. We are NOT a democracy where the majority rules. We are a represented republic and even minorities have a voice. Big population centers have to rely on the gubment more so than people in rural areas so they all lean liberal. Bottom line in CA is the rural areas will at least get some electoral votes. Lest just say they divide in 3 and one state is very red, one is very blue and one is purple. Say the read get 10% of the electoral votes, the blue gets 70% and the purple get 20%. The blue would get 40 electoral votes, red 6 and toss-up of the other 12. Give GOP a voice in CA and that is long over due.

yeah lets gerrymander more in favor of the GOP, because we havent done that enough.

2018-04-12 11:09 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Rogillio So CA has 55 electoral votes and it's winner take all. Presumably if they are divided in 3 they would still have a total of 55 but each of the 3 new states would have a portion of those 55 total. So then the conservative parts of the state will have a voice.

they would not still have 55, you get an electoral vote for each congressional seat, that means there would be at least a total of 59.  There may in fact be up to 3 more depending on the districting as the districts in california have more people in them than small population states.  the electoral college favors the conservative party at this point, if you look at straight population distribution (or the popular vote) the democrats would have won 4 of the last 5 elections instead of 2.

 

The electoral college favors states with fewer people. It is designed to keep the population centers from running rough shod over more rural areas. We are NOT a democracy where the majority rules. We are a represented republic and even minorities have a voice. Big population centers have to rely on the gubment more so than people in rural areas so they all lean liberal. Bottom line in CA is the rural areas will at least get some electoral votes. Lest just say they divide in 3 and one state is very red, one is very blue and one is purple. Say the read get 10% of the electoral votes, the blue gets 70% and the purple get 20%. The blue would get 40 electoral votes, red 6 and toss-up of the other 12. Give GOP a voice in CA and that is long over due.

yeah lets gerrymander more in favor of the GOP, because we havent done that enough.

LOL - dude, you were fine when you thought it would give even more electoral votes to the dems.  It's the people of California who want this.....not either political party.  You don't get a say in it unless you decide to move out there.



Edited by Left Brain 2018-04-12 11:10 PM
2018-04-13 8:37 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Rogillio So CA has 55 electoral votes and it's winner take all. Presumably if they are divided in 3 they would still have a total of 55 but each of the 3 new states would have a portion of those 55 total. So then the conservative parts of the state will have a voice.

they would not still have 55, you get an electoral vote for each congressional seat, that means there would be at least a total of 59.  There may in fact be up to 3 more depending on the districting as the districts in california have more people in them than small population states.  the electoral college favors the conservative party at this point, if you look at straight population distribution (or the popular vote) the democrats would have won 4 of the last 5 elections instead of 2.

 

The electoral college favors states with fewer people. It is designed to keep the population centers from running rough shod over more rural areas. We are NOT a democracy where the majority rules. We are a represented republic and even minorities have a voice. Big population centers have to rely on the gubment more so than people in rural areas so they all lean liberal. Bottom line in CA is the rural areas will at least get some electoral votes. Lest just say they divide in 3 and one state is very red, one is very blue and one is purple. Say the read get 10% of the electoral votes, the blue gets 70% and the purple get 20%. The blue would get 40 electoral votes, red 6 and toss-up of the other 12. Give GOP a voice in CA and that is long over due.

yeah lets gerrymander more in favor of the GOP, because we havent done that enough.

LOL - dude, you were fine when you thought it would give even more electoral votes to the dems.  It's the people of California who want this.....not either political party.  You don't get a say in it unless you decide to move out there.

If the people of California get the final say in how their state is split up, then I'd have to assume the result would be three heavily gerrymandered blue states. Maybe two blue and a purple.  Same result if their politicians pick the boundaries, or the courts all the way up to the 9th Circuit. 

Worst case scenario for the Dems, two solid blue states (one controlled by the San Diego/LA area and one by San Fran/San Jose) and a solid red state up on the north side. If I'm the DNC, I'd take that in a heartbeat. Give up a half dozen electoral college votes in exchange for gaining two more Senate votes? That's a no brainer. 

2018-04-13 8:44 AM
in reply to: Bob Loblaw

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3
Doesn't this open the door for other states with clearly red and blue areas to consider breaking into smaller pieces. Upstate vs Downstate NY for example, or the state I live in. South Florida has nothing culturally in common with the Panhandle. Austin and other urban areas within Texas have little in common with West Texas. I think the politics would generally be a wash, but is this really where we want to go, further codifying the political divisions we have within our country? IMHO the only way we learn to get along is being forced to get along.


2018-04-13 8:54 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Originally posted by Oysterboy Doesn't this open the door for other states with clearly red and blue areas to consider breaking into smaller pieces. Upstate vs Downstate NY for example, or the state I live in. South Florida has nothing culturally in common with the Panhandle. Austin and other urban areas within Texas have little in common with West Texas. I think the politics would generally be a wash, but is this really where we want to go, further codifying the political divisions we have within our country? IMHO the only way we learn to get along is being forced to get along.

I've got to say this.....I don't want to get along anymore.  I'm tired of it.  Like I said, it's gotten to the point where I have very little, if anything, in common with the left, and I'm tired of playing defense.  My new game plan is to not give a single inch on any liberal issue.  I don't see us "getting along" and I only see the division getting wider.  Let's get on with it.  It'll either happen with both sides agreeing to part ways, or there will be a civil war for this country.......I just can't see another way out of it.

2018-04-13 8:58 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3
Originally posted by Oysterboy

Doesn't this open the door for other states with clearly red and blue areas to consider breaking into smaller pieces. Upstate vs Downstate NY for example, or the state I live in. South Florida has nothing culturally in common with the Panhandle. Austin and other urban areas within Texas have little in common with West Texas. I think the politics would generally be a wash, but is this really where we want to go, further codifying the political divisions we have within our country? IMHO the only way we learn to get along is being forced to get along.


If you just look at it from the national level then yes, it creates a precedence. But this is mostly about state politics. How many counties/cities have sued the state now over sanctuary laws now? Individual, business and property taxes are driving people and businesses away from CA in droves. Perhaps the red parts of the state don't want to leave, they just don't want to be governed by big city liberals?
2018-04-13 9:07 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by Oysterboy Doesn't this open the door for other states with clearly red and blue areas to consider breaking into smaller pieces. Upstate vs Downstate NY for example, or the state I live in. South Florida has nothing culturally in common with the Panhandle. Austin and other urban areas within Texas have little in common with West Texas. I think the politics would generally be a wash, but is this really where we want to go, further codifying the political divisions we have within our country? IMHO the only way we learn to get along is being forced to get along.
If you just look at it from the national level then yes, it creates a precedence. But this is mostly about state politics. How many counties/cities have sued the state now over sanctuary laws now? Individual, business and property taxes are driving people and businesses away from CA in droves. Perhaps the red parts of the state don't want to leave, they just don't want to be governed by big city liberals?

Yep, they've had enough too.

2018-04-13 9:43 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3
Originally posted by Rogillio

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Doesn't this open the door for other states with clearly red and blue areas to consider breaking into smaller pieces. Upstate vs Downstate NY for example, or the state I live in. South Florida has nothing culturally in common with the Panhandle. Austin and other urban areas within Texas have little in common with West Texas. I think the politics would generally be a wash, but is this really where we want to go, further codifying the political divisions we have within our country? IMHO the only way we learn to get along is being forced to get along.


If you just look at it from the national level then yes, it creates a precedence. But this is mostly about state politics. How many counties/cities have sued the state now over sanctuary laws now? Individual, business and property taxes are driving people and businesses away from CA in droves. Perhaps the red parts of the state don't want to leave, they just don't want to be governed by big city liberals?

But this is true all over the country. Do you think the libs in Austin are thrilled about the general direction of state politics? I can assure you that our Governor is not liked across the board due largely to placating his tea-party base for the first 2 years of his admin (he has chillaxed on that and his overall approval has come up some). Look at a county-by-county 2016 election map, there are more than one blueberry in the tomato soup across the country. This goes both ways gentlemen



(election-2016-county-map.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
election-2016-county-map.jpg (91KB - 1 downloads)
2018-04-13 9:49 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3
I see this like an MRI or Cat Scan picture with the blue showing where the cancer is. ;-)



2018-04-13 9:55 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Interesting that I don't see any blue areas that I even care about visiting.

2018-04-13 9:57 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3
Originally posted by Rogillio

I see this like an MRI or Cat Scan picture with the blue showing where the cancer is. ;-)



And if you get cancer, the blue is where your gonna want to go.
2018-04-13 10:20 AM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3
Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Rogillio

I see this like an MRI or Cat Scan picture with the blue showing where the cancer is. ;-)



And if you get cancer, the blue is where your gonna want to go.


Touché. Agree, the only good reason to go to these place is if you have a cancer.

Seriously though, I enjoy being a tourist in big cities. NYC is an awesome place to see and experience. Can't take more than few days there though. Love to eat some alligator tail in the French Quarter in 'Nawlins and have a Hurricane at Pat O's. Enjoyed riding the HOHO bus around Chicago. Jogged across the GGB and back one time. Loved seeing all the history in Boston and seeing a game at Fenway. I've been to almost every big city in America at one time or another. But would NEVER live in a big city.
2018-04-13 10:52 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Splitting CA in 3

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Rogillio So CA has 55 electoral votes and it's winner take all. Presumably if they are divided in 3 they would still have a total of 55 but each of the 3 new states would have a portion of those 55 total. So then the conservative parts of the state will have a voice.

they would not still have 55, you get an electoral vote for each congressional seat, that means there would be at least a total of 59.  There may in fact be up to 3 more depending on the districting as the districts in california have more people in them than small population states.  the electoral college favors the conservative party at this point, if you look at straight population distribution (or the popular vote) the democrats would have won 4 of the last 5 elections instead of 2.

 

The electoral college favors states with fewer people. It is designed to keep the population centers from running rough shod over more rural areas. We are NOT a democracy where the majority rules. We are a represented republic and even minorities have a voice. Big population centers have to rely on the gubment more so than people in rural areas so they all lean liberal. Bottom line in CA is the rural areas will at least get some electoral votes. Lest just say they divide in 3 and one state is very red, one is very blue and one is purple. Say the read get 10% of the electoral votes, the blue gets 70% and the purple get 20%. The blue would get 40 electoral votes, red 6 and toss-up of the other 12. Give GOP a voice in CA and that is long over due.

yeah lets gerrymander more in favor of the GOP, because we havent done that enough.

You do realize that the GOP doesn't have a monopoly on gerrymandering right.  I don't like it when anybody does it, but for some reason liberals like to pretend that only conservatives gerrymander.  Another interesting form of gerrymandering is the whole non-citizens and the census.  The Democrats are fighting like crazy to keep the "are you a citizen" question off of the census because the total population numbers are what determines congressional seats per state.  California easily has 4 or 5 more house seats due to the 2M plus illegals in the state.  If they're counted as non-citizens then CA will lose congressional seats...

Chicago:

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Splitting CA in 3 Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2