The obvious, and perhaps the only, solution to the problem of California's absurdly outsized relationship to the rest of the country is to split California. Thus, the question becomes: Split it how?
One alternative is to split it along a north-south line between the inland counties and the coastal counties, thereby creating East California and West California. The question which immediately arises is what to do with the five counties which abut the San Francisco Bay but not the Pacific Ocean. We could treat them as inland counties on the ground that they do not abut the Pacific Ocean. Or we could treat them as coastal counties on the ground that they abut what has been known for centuries as "an immense arm of the sea".
If we treat those five counties as inland counties, then splitting California into East California and West California is a bad idea for at least three reasons.
First, the primary appeal of the East-West California split is political: The coastal counties tend to be more progressive than the inland counties. But if we include the five counties which abut the San Francisco Bay but not the Pacific Ocean, that political difference largely evaporates. Those five counties -- Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, and Solano -- range from the progressive to the very progressive.
Second, if we consider the counties which abut the San Francisco Bay but not the Pacific Ocean, it follows that East California would be landlocked. Yes, many States are landlocked, but I see no reason to create another one, especially one that would be within "spitting distance" of the largest ocean on the planet.
Third, we would be tearing one of California's main population centers (the Bay Area) apart and combining a big chunk of it -- the counties which abut the Pacific Ocean -- with most of California's other main population center (the Los Angeles area). The entire Bay Area is smaller (yet again, population-wise) than the Los Angeles area, so combining a big chunk of the Bay Area would undermine the purpose of elminating, or at least reducing, the California-is-too-damn-big problem.
On the other hand, we could treat the five counties which abut the San Francisco Bay -- the "immense arm of the sea" -- but not the Pacific Ocean as coastal counties. In that case, splitting California into East California, comprising the inland counties, and West California, comprising the coastal counties, would be a bad idea for at least three reasons.
First, East California would not include either of California's main population centers -- the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area -- and West California would include both of them, so West California would still be a population behemoth. That rather defeats the purpose of splitting California because it is too damn big.
Second, East California would be landlocked. See above.
Third -- and this may well be the most important -- splitting California between the coastal counties and the inland counties would be an economic disaster for East California. It would be rather like creating another Connecticut and another Mississippi.
Of California's 37 inland counties, almost two thirds (24; 64.9%) have more people living below the poverty line than the statewide average. And almost two thirds (24 -- but not quite the same 24 -- 64.9%) have more families with median incomes below the statewide average.
A new State which would include neither of California's main population centers, which would be landlocked, and which would would comprise counties with disproportionate numbers of people living below the poverty line and families with below average median incomes: East California just makes no sense, so splitting California into East California and West California makes no sense.
What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Give half of it back to Mexico? .........What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Andrew, you have obviously given this an enormous amount of thought...
You do of course realize that none of this is actually ever going to happen....
You do of course realize that none of this is actually ever going to happen....
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Some guy named San Andreas might argue with you there LJ
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
An east-west split of California into North California and South California, on the other hand, makes a great deal of sense. So my proposal is that South California should comprise the ten southernmost counties of present California: Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. North California should comprise present California's other forty-eight counties, which I will not clog this posting by listing. There is a convenient map of California's fifty-eight counties here.
First and foremost, that would solve the California-is-just-too-damn-big problem. South California would be the second most populous State, and North California would be the fifth most populous State. Among the eight States with populations greater than 10 million -- Texas, South California, New York, Florida, North California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio -- the greatest difference between any State and the next most populous State would be a bit over 4 million (between Florida and North California). That is only about a third of the current difference between present California and Texas.
South California would have 60.2% of present California's population, and North California would have 39.8% of present California's population. There are arithmetic ways to bring those populations closer to being equal, but there are good reasons for the division which I propose.
First, Los Angeles County would be the population colossus of South California, just as it is the population colossus of present California. Orange County is effectively a populous adjunct to Los Angeles County, as is Ventura County.
Riverside County's population is concentrated in its western extreme, where it borders San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Given that, it belongs in South California with Orange County. In turn, geographic contiguity requires that San Diego and Imperial Counties be in South California.
Similarly, and to an even greater degree, San Bernardino County's population is concentrated in its southwestern corner, where it borders Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties. Thus, it belongs in South California with Los Angeles and Orange Counties. (And in turn, geographic contiguity requires that Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties be in South California.)
That leaves Kern, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. Kern County's population is somewhat concentrated in the area bordering Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. Santa Barbara County's population is largely concentrated along or near its southern (as distinct from western) coastline. San Luis Obispo County's population is largely strung out, north to south, along Interstate 395.
None of those factors would necessarily dictate that Kern, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties be in South California. (Although if Kern and San Luis Obispo Counties are in South California, geographic contiguity requires that Santa Barbara County also be in South California.)
But there is another important factor: the relationships, in terms of population distribution, of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties to the counties immediately north of the proposed division line -- Montery, Kings, Tulare, and Inyo Counties. Monterey County's population is concentrated in its north, towards Monterey Bay and away from San Luis Obispo County. Kings County's population is also concentrated, though somewhat less than Monterey County's, in its north, away from Kern County. Tulare County's population is strongly concentrated in its north, away from Kern County and towards Fresno County. Even Inyo County's population -- such as it is; Inyo County is mostly desert and has an average population density of less than two people per square mile -- is concentrated in its north, towards Mono and Fresno Counties and away from Kern and San Bernardino Counties.
In short, the proposed division line generally runs through the least populous areas of the counties immediately south of it -- San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernardino -- and through the least populous areas of the counties immediately north of it -- Monterey, Kings, Tulare, and Inyo. In terms of population distribution, it is as near to ideal as one is likely to get.
First and foremost, that would solve the California-is-just-too-damn-big problem. South California would be the second most populous State, and North California would be the fifth most populous State. Among the eight States with populations greater than 10 million -- Texas, South California, New York, Florida, North California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio -- the greatest difference between any State and the next most populous State would be a bit over 4 million (between Florida and North California). That is only about a third of the current difference between present California and Texas.
South California would have 60.2% of present California's population, and North California would have 39.8% of present California's population. There are arithmetic ways to bring those populations closer to being equal, but there are good reasons for the division which I propose.
First, Los Angeles County would be the population colossus of South California, just as it is the population colossus of present California. Orange County is effectively a populous adjunct to Los Angeles County, as is Ventura County.
Riverside County's population is concentrated in its western extreme, where it borders San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Given that, it belongs in South California with Orange County. In turn, geographic contiguity requires that San Diego and Imperial Counties be in South California.
Similarly, and to an even greater degree, San Bernardino County's population is concentrated in its southwestern corner, where it borders Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties. Thus, it belongs in South California with Los Angeles and Orange Counties. (And in turn, geographic contiguity requires that Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties be in South California.)
That leaves Kern, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. Kern County's population is somewhat concentrated in the area bordering Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. Santa Barbara County's population is largely concentrated along or near its southern (as distinct from western) coastline. San Luis Obispo County's population is largely strung out, north to south, along Interstate 395.
None of those factors would necessarily dictate that Kern, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties be in South California. (Although if Kern and San Luis Obispo Counties are in South California, geographic contiguity requires that Santa Barbara County also be in South California.)
But there is another important factor: the relationships, in terms of population distribution, of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties to the counties immediately north of the proposed division line -- Montery, Kings, Tulare, and Inyo Counties. Monterey County's population is concentrated in its north, towards Monterey Bay and away from San Luis Obispo County. Kings County's population is also concentrated, though somewhat less than Monterey County's, in its north, away from Kern County. Tulare County's population is strongly concentrated in its north, away from Kern County and towards Fresno County. Even Inyo County's population -- such as it is; Inyo County is mostly desert and has an average population density of less than two people per square mile -- is concentrated in its north, towards Mono and Fresno Counties and away from Kern and San Bernardino Counties.
In short, the proposed division line generally runs through the least populous areas of the counties immediately south of it -- San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernardino -- and through the least populous areas of the counties immediately north of it -- Monterey, Kings, Tulare, and Inyo. In terms of population distribution, it is as near to ideal as one is likely to get.
Last edited by Andrew D on Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
As the north-south political divide has become less acute there is much less impetus to split the state. LA county is more democratic and San Diego has moved from Red to Purple. The blighted inland areas like San Bernardino, Imperial and Riverside ( known collectively as 'the ratlands') and are still heavily Republican as is Orange, the last time I checked.
I wouldn't give up San Luis Obispo without a fight otherwise the split makes sense geographically.
But as I say, there is little momentum in that direction.
yrs,
rubato
I wouldn't give up San Luis Obispo without a fight otherwise the split makes sense geographically.
But as I say, there is little momentum in that direction.
yrs,
rubato
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Secede!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
That is not accurate.rubato wrote:The blighted inland areas like San Bernardino, Imperial and Riverside ( known collectively as 'the ratlands') and are still heavily Republican ....
Imperial County actually leans strongly Democratic: It has voted Democratic in all six of the last presidential elections and in eight of the last nine US senatorial elections.
San Bernardino County is not heavily Republican, despite its Republican leanings: It has voted Democratic in four of the last six presidential elections and in five of the last nine US senatorial elections.
Even Riverside County is not as heavily Republican as it is often made out to be: It has voted Democratic in four of the last six presidential elections.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Why let the truth spoil a rubato post?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Why let the truth spoil a rubato post?
That's always been my view...
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
A long way of saying that 'yes they are Republican strongholds in a democratic state but not perfectly so'.Andrew D wrote:That is not accurate.rubato wrote:The blighted inland areas like San Bernardino, Imperial and Riverside ( known collectively as 'the ratlands') and are still heavily Republican ....
Imperial County actually leans strongly Democratic: It has voted Democratic in all six of the last presidential elections and in eight of the last nine US senatorial elections.
San Bernardino County is not heavily Republican, despite its Republican leanings: It has voted Democratic in four of the last six presidential elections and in five of the last nine US senatorial elections.
Even Riverside County is not as heavily Republican as it is often made out to be: It has voted Democratic in four of the last six presidential elections.
2004 presidential vote by county.
Wow. I'm Impressed. I'll give you Imperial but the other all fall out exactly as I said.
yrs,
rubato
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Oh, look, in the governors race they came out the same:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/california
Well I'm shocked! shocked!
It's exactly as I said it was!
yrs,
rubato
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/california
Well I'm shocked! shocked!
It's exactly as I said it was!
yrs,
rubato
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Fixed that for rubato.rubato wrote:A long way of saying that 'yes, they are Republican strongholds in a democratic state but not perfectly so things are exactly as Andrew posted'. He posted that Riverside and San Bernardino had both voted Democratic in four of the last six presidential elections, and I found one of the two presidential elections in which Riverside and San Bernardino voted Republican. Bully for me!
And if you are wondering why rubato had to skip over the two most recent presidential elections to find his map, the reason is simple: In the two most recent presidential elections, Riverside and San Bernardino both voted Democratic.
The simple facts are that Riverside and San Bernardino both voted for Clinton twice, for Bush twice, and for Obama twice. Does that make them "Republican strongholds"? I invite readers to draw their own conclusions.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Gubernatorial elections are more complicated, because California has a long history of switching back and forth between Democratic and Republican Governors. In four of the last seven gubernatorial elections, California voted Republican.
(We elected Wilson (Republican) twice, and then we elected Davis (Democratic) twice. We promptly threw Davis out and elected Schwarzenegger (Republican) twice, and then we elected Brown (Democratic).)
In short: (1) Riverside and San Bernardino Counties usually (71.43% of the time) vote the same way as does California; (2) San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura Counties all vote Republican as often as do Riverside and San Bernardino; and (3) Kern and Orange Counties vote Republican more often, and by bigger margins, than do Riverside and San Bernardino.
In five of the last seven gubernatorial elections, Riverside and San Bernardino both voted the same way as did the State as a whole. That includes the 1998 election, in which Riverside and San Bernardino both voted Democratic.
(rubato found one of the two gubernatorial elections in which Riverside and San Bernardino both voted differently from the State as a whole. Bully for him!)
Does that make them "Republican strongholds"? Well, compared to what?
In the last seven gubernatorial elections, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura Counties all voted Republican as often as did Riverside and San Bernardino. So I guess that they are also "Republican strongholds".
(And San Luis Obispo is a "Republican stronghold[]" which rubato "wouldn't give up ... without a fight". Go figure.)
Personally, if I were looking for Republican strongholds, I would look for counties that, unlike Riverside or San Bernardino, voted Republican in all seven of the last seven gubernatorial elections. I would not have to look far.
Kern County voted Republican in all seven of the last seven gubernatiorial elections. Orange County voted Republican in all seven of the last seven gubernatorial elections.
And even when Riverside and San Berdardino also voted Republican, Kern and Orange were still more "Republican strongholds" than were Riverside and San Bernardino: The average margin for Republicans in Kern is a dozen points bigger than the average margin for Republicans in Riverside and sixteen points bigger than the average margin for Republicans in San Bernardino, and so is the average margin for Republicans in Orange.
So where are South California's real "Republican strongholds"? Again, I invite readers to draw their own conclusions.
(We elected Wilson (Republican) twice, and then we elected Davis (Democratic) twice. We promptly threw Davis out and elected Schwarzenegger (Republican) twice, and then we elected Brown (Democratic).)
In short: (1) Riverside and San Bernardino Counties usually (71.43% of the time) vote the same way as does California; (2) San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura Counties all vote Republican as often as do Riverside and San Bernardino; and (3) Kern and Orange Counties vote Republican more often, and by bigger margins, than do Riverside and San Bernardino.
In five of the last seven gubernatorial elections, Riverside and San Bernardino both voted the same way as did the State as a whole. That includes the 1998 election, in which Riverside and San Bernardino both voted Democratic.
(rubato found one of the two gubernatorial elections in which Riverside and San Bernardino both voted differently from the State as a whole. Bully for him!)
Does that make them "Republican strongholds"? Well, compared to what?
In the last seven gubernatorial elections, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura Counties all voted Republican as often as did Riverside and San Bernardino. So I guess that they are also "Republican strongholds".
(And San Luis Obispo is a "Republican stronghold[]" which rubato "wouldn't give up ... without a fight". Go figure.)
Personally, if I were looking for Republican strongholds, I would look for counties that, unlike Riverside or San Bernardino, voted Republican in all seven of the last seven gubernatorial elections. I would not have to look far.
Kern County voted Republican in all seven of the last seven gubernatiorial elections. Orange County voted Republican in all seven of the last seven gubernatorial elections.
And even when Riverside and San Berdardino also voted Republican, Kern and Orange were still more "Republican strongholds" than were Riverside and San Bernardino: The average margin for Republicans in Kern is a dozen points bigger than the average margin for Republicans in Riverside and sixteen points bigger than the average margin for Republicans in San Bernardino, and so is the average margin for Republicans in Orange.
So where are South California's real "Republican strongholds"? Again, I invite readers to draw their own conclusions.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Perhaps you can find readers who can look up congressional districts?Andrew D wrote: "... I invite readers to draw their own conclusions.
2010 senate race:
2010 congressional districts: (here you can see the districts around San Diego which drove it from Red to Purple)
2010 governors race:
2010 Secretary of State:
This is prop 30 in 2012 a pretty-much straight-across litmus test for Republican-Democrat:
Democrats picked up a seat in Riverside county but it is otherwise still Republican.
Presidential voting numbers in a year with a candidate as weak as Romney simply don't reflect the underlying political demographics. Besides, there are a lot of hard-shell Mormon-haters out there in the sagebrush.
yrs,
rubato
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
By the way, as to where South California's "Republican strongholds" really are -- Kern and Orange Counties on one hand and Riverside and San Bernardino Counties on the other -- it bears noting that:
In the last six presidential elections, Kern voted Republican all six times, and Orange voted Republican all six times; but Riverside voted Democratic four times and Republican twice, and San Bernardino voted Democratic four times and Republican twice.
In the last nine senatorial elections, Kern voted Republican all nine times, and Orange voted Republican all nine times; but Riverside voted Democratic three times and Republican six times, and San Bernardino voted Democratic five times and Republican four times.
So which are the real "Republican strongholds"? The two counties which, combined, voted Republican 100% of the time for President and Senator combined? Or the two counties which, combined, voted Republican 47% of the time for President and Senator combined?
Hmmm ....
In the last six presidential elections, Kern voted Republican all six times, and Orange voted Republican all six times; but Riverside voted Democratic four times and Republican twice, and San Bernardino voted Democratic four times and Republican twice.
In the last nine senatorial elections, Kern voted Republican all nine times, and Orange voted Republican all nine times; but Riverside voted Democratic three times and Republican six times, and San Bernardino voted Democratic five times and Republican four times.
So which are the real "Republican strongholds"? The two counties which, combined, voted Republican 100% of the time for President and Senator combined? Or the two counties which, combined, voted Republican 47% of the time for President and Senator combined?
Hmmm ....
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Presidential elections tell only a small fraction of the story:
____________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_ ... a#Politics
Riverside has historically been regarded as a Republican county in presidential and congressional elections. In 1932, it was one of only two counties (the other being Benton County, Oregon) on the entire Pacific coast of the United States to vote for Hoover over Roosevelt.[15] In 2008, Barack Obama narrowly carried the county, becoming the first Democrat to do so since Bill Clinton in 1992.
In the House of Representatives, a substantial portion of Riverside County lies in California's 45th congressional district, with parts in the 41st, 44th, and 49th districts. All four districts are held by Republicans, the 41st by Jerry Lewis, the 44th by Ken Calvert, the 45th by Mary Bono Mack, and the 49th by Darrell Issa.
In the State Assembly all of the 64th district and parts of the 63rd, 65th, 66th, 71st, and 80th districts lie in the county. The 63rd is currently vacant, the 64th is represented by Republican Brian Nestande, the 65th by Republican Paul Cook, the 71st by Republican Jeff Miller, and the 80th by Democrat Manuel Perez. In the 80th Assembly District, which has a significant Democratic voter registration edge, Democrats were able to take back the district after 14 years of Republican representation with Perez's victory.
In the State Senate all of the 37th district and parts of the 31st, 36th, and 40th districts are located in the county. The 31st, 36th, and 37th districts are held by Republicans, Robert Dutton, Dennis Hollingsworth, and Bill Emmerson respectively, and the 40th is held by Democrat Denise Moreno Ducheny.
Riverside County voted 64.8% in favor of Proposition 8 which amended the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriages.[citation needed]
____________________________________
And while it is true that Riverside appears to be shifting towards the Democrats (lots of Mexican immigrants) it is still mostly Republican.
What is more surprising is how quickly San Diego has shifted to purple from scarlet red.
yrs,
rubato
____________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_ ... a#Politics
Riverside has historically been regarded as a Republican county in presidential and congressional elections. In 1932, it was one of only two counties (the other being Benton County, Oregon) on the entire Pacific coast of the United States to vote for Hoover over Roosevelt.[15] In 2008, Barack Obama narrowly carried the county, becoming the first Democrat to do so since Bill Clinton in 1992.
In the House of Representatives, a substantial portion of Riverside County lies in California's 45th congressional district, with parts in the 41st, 44th, and 49th districts. All four districts are held by Republicans, the 41st by Jerry Lewis, the 44th by Ken Calvert, the 45th by Mary Bono Mack, and the 49th by Darrell Issa.
In the State Assembly all of the 64th district and parts of the 63rd, 65th, 66th, 71st, and 80th districts lie in the county. The 63rd is currently vacant, the 64th is represented by Republican Brian Nestande, the 65th by Republican Paul Cook, the 71st by Republican Jeff Miller, and the 80th by Democrat Manuel Perez. In the 80th Assembly District, which has a significant Democratic voter registration edge, Democrats were able to take back the district after 14 years of Republican representation with Perez's victory.
In the State Senate all of the 37th district and parts of the 31st, 36th, and 40th districts are located in the county. The 31st, 36th, and 37th districts are held by Republicans, Robert Dutton, Dennis Hollingsworth, and Bill Emmerson respectively, and the 40th is held by Democrat Denise Moreno Ducheny.
Riverside County voted 64.8% in favor of Proposition 8 which amended the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriages.[citation needed]
____________________________________
And while it is true that Riverside appears to be shifting towards the Democrats (lots of Mexican immigrants) it is still mostly Republican.
What is more surprising is how quickly San Diego has shifted to purple from scarlet red.
yrs,
rubato
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
The pertinent facts remain exactly as I have stated them.
rubato presents a map of the results of one presidential election; I have discussed the numerical results of the last six.
rubato presents a map of the results of one senatorial election; I have discussed the numerical results of the last nine.
rubato presents a map of the results of one congressional election. Because congressional districts do not line up with county borders, those results are, by themselves, meaningless. If he would like to present the results of congressional elections by county, I invite him to do so.
rubato presents a map of the results of one election for Secretary of State. Why only Secretary of State? Why not the other officers elected statewide -- Lieutenant Governor, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, and Insurance Commissioner? Only rubato knows the reasons for his cherry-picking.
rubato presents a map of the results for one proposition at one election. So?
In short, rubato has presented little snapshots to prove his contentions (except for his original contention about Imperial County, which he has acknowledged to be false). I have presented electoral information covering twenty-three years. Readers will have to decide for themselves which presentation is more persuasive.
rubato presents a map of the results of one presidential election; I have discussed the numerical results of the last six.
rubato presents a map of the results of one senatorial election; I have discussed the numerical results of the last nine.
rubato presents a map of the results of one congressional election. Because congressional districts do not line up with county borders, those results are, by themselves, meaningless. If he would like to present the results of congressional elections by county, I invite him to do so.
rubato presents a map of the results of one election for Secretary of State. Why only Secretary of State? Why not the other officers elected statewide -- Lieutenant Governor, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, and Insurance Commissioner? Only rubato knows the reasons for his cherry-picking.
rubato presents a map of the results for one proposition at one election. So?
In short, rubato has presented little snapshots to prove his contentions (except for his original contention about Imperial County, which he has acknowledged to be false). I have presented electoral information covering twenty-three years. Readers will have to decide for themselves which presentation is more persuasive.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
rubato presents information concerning Riverside County. What I originally posted about Riverside is that it "is not as heavily Republican as it is often made out to be". Given that Riverside has voted Democratic in four of the last six presidential elections -- including the two most recent ones, the ones that rubato skipped over -- nothing in rubato's latest presentation contradicts that assessment.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
According to this Riverside voted for the Democratic candidate for president only three times out of the last six and five of the last 23:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_ ... a#Politics
Riverside County vote
by party in presidential elections
Year ….. GOP ………….Riverside County vote
by party in presidential elections
Year ….. GOP …………................ DEM …………......... Others
2012 ….. 48.1% 318,127 …………. 49.7% 329,063 …………. 2.2% 14,717
2008 ….. 47.9% 310,041 …………. 50.3% 325,017 …………. 1.8% 12,241
2004 ….. 57.8% 322,473 …………. 41.0% 228,806 …………. 1.1% 6,300
2000 ….. 51.4% 231,955 …………. 44.9% 202,576 …………. 3.7% 16,596
1996 ….. 45.6% 178,611 …………. 43.1% 168,579 …………. 11.3% 44,423
1992 ….. 37.1% 159,457 …………. 38.6% 166,241 …………. 24.3% 104,577
1988 ….. 59.5% 199,979 …………. 39.6% 133,122 …………. 1.0% 3,247
1984 ….. 63.5% 182,324 …………. 35.5% 102,043 …………. 1.0% 2,835
1980 ….. 59.9% 145,642 …………. 31.5% 76,650 …………. 8.6% 20,986
1976 ….. 49.2% 97,774 …………. 48.5% 96,228 …………. 2.3% 4,556
1972 ….. 58.0% 108,120 …………. 38.4% 71,591 …………. 3.6% 6,693
1968 ….. 52.9% 83,414 …………. 38.8% 61,146 …………. 8.3% 13,110
1964 ….. 43.1% 61,165 …………. 56.8% 80,528 …………. 0.1% 95
1960 ….. 56.2% 65,855 …………. 43.4% 50,877 …………. 0.5% 544
1956 ….. 62.2% 56,766 …………. 37.3% 34,098 …………. 0.5% 465
1952 ….. 65.1% 51,692 …………. 33.9% 26,948 …………. 1.0% 788
1948 ….. 55.7% 32,209 …………. 40.3% 23,305 …………. 4.1% 2,350
1944 ….. 53.9% 23,168 …………. 45.3% 19,439 …………. 0.8% 346
1940 ….. 51.4% 21,779 …………. 47.2% 20,003 …………. 1.4% 598
1936 ….. 48.9% 16,674 …………. 49.9% 17,011 …………. 1.2% 422
1932 ….. 50.2% 14,112 …………. 45.4% 12,755 …………. 4.4% 1,245
1928 ….. 77.9% 17,600 …………. 21.1% 4,769 …………. 0.9% 212
1924 ….. 62.0% 9,619 …………. 8.5% 1,318 …………. 29.5% 4,579
1920 ….. 69.6% 9,124 …………. 21.3% 2,798 …………. 9.1% 1,196
yrs,
rubato
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_ ... a#Politics
Riverside County vote
by party in presidential elections
Year ….. GOP ………….Riverside County vote
by party in presidential elections
Year ….. GOP …………................ DEM …………......... Others
2012 ….. 48.1% 318,127 …………. 49.7% 329,063 …………. 2.2% 14,717
2008 ….. 47.9% 310,041 …………. 50.3% 325,017 …………. 1.8% 12,241
2004 ….. 57.8% 322,473 …………. 41.0% 228,806 …………. 1.1% 6,300
2000 ….. 51.4% 231,955 …………. 44.9% 202,576 …………. 3.7% 16,596
1996 ….. 45.6% 178,611 …………. 43.1% 168,579 …………. 11.3% 44,423
1992 ….. 37.1% 159,457 …………. 38.6% 166,241 …………. 24.3% 104,577
1988 ….. 59.5% 199,979 …………. 39.6% 133,122 …………. 1.0% 3,247
1984 ….. 63.5% 182,324 …………. 35.5% 102,043 …………. 1.0% 2,835
1980 ….. 59.9% 145,642 …………. 31.5% 76,650 …………. 8.6% 20,986
1976 ….. 49.2% 97,774 …………. 48.5% 96,228 …………. 2.3% 4,556
1972 ….. 58.0% 108,120 …………. 38.4% 71,591 …………. 3.6% 6,693
1968 ….. 52.9% 83,414 …………. 38.8% 61,146 …………. 8.3% 13,110
1964 ….. 43.1% 61,165 …………. 56.8% 80,528 …………. 0.1% 95
1960 ….. 56.2% 65,855 …………. 43.4% 50,877 …………. 0.5% 544
1956 ….. 62.2% 56,766 …………. 37.3% 34,098 …………. 0.5% 465
1952 ….. 65.1% 51,692 …………. 33.9% 26,948 …………. 1.0% 788
1948 ….. 55.7% 32,209 …………. 40.3% 23,305 …………. 4.1% 2,350
1944 ….. 53.9% 23,168 …………. 45.3% 19,439 …………. 0.8% 346
1940 ….. 51.4% 21,779 …………. 47.2% 20,003 …………. 1.4% 598
1936 ….. 48.9% 16,674 …………. 49.9% 17,011 …………. 1.2% 422
1932 ….. 50.2% 14,112 …………. 45.4% 12,755 …………. 4.4% 1,245
1928 ….. 77.9% 17,600 …………. 21.1% 4,769 …………. 0.9% 212
1924 ….. 62.0% 9,619 …………. 8.5% 1,318 …………. 29.5% 4,579
1920 ….. 69.6% 9,124 …………. 21.3% 2,798 …………. 9.1% 1,196
yrs,
rubato