What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big

[rubato]

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.

Three of the last six, and the state assembly, house of representatives, State Senate, and other voting demographics (prop 30 and prop8) are against you.

So you're just wrong.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Welp, I guess that's it then.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The sane States plan:

[Andrew D]

My original descriptions of the counties at issue remain accurate: (1) "Imperial County actually leans strongly Democratic"; (2) "San Bernardino County is not heavily Republican, despite its Republican leanings"; and (3) "[e]ven Riverside County is not as heavily Republican as it is often made out to be".

Even if Riverside voted Democratic in only half of the last six presidential elections, it still voted Democratic in, well, half of the last six presidential elections. (Whereas Kern and Orange have voted Republican in all six.) That does not change my original assertion that Riverside "is not as heavily Republican as it is often made out to be".

rubato seems determined to prove that Riverside is a Republican county. Considering that I have not denied that proposition -- indeed, my original assertion that Riverside "is not as heavily Republican as it is often made out to be" accords with that proposition -- I do not understand why rubato is making that effort.

-------------------------

California's legislative and congressional districts still do not accord with county lines. No matter how many times rubato posts information about them, they will continue not to accord with county. My invitation for him to post such results by county remains open.

Propositions are non-partisan matters: Democrats can, and often do, vote "Republican" on propositions; and Republicans can, and often do, vote "Democratic" on propositions. How counties voted on Proposition 8 is an odd choice for proving that some counties are "Republican strongholds in a democratic state": California as a whole voted in favor -- i.e., voted "Republican" -- on Proposition 8.

-------------------------

Anyway, speaking of original assertions, rubato has, of course, long since thrown overboard his original, patently false claim that Imperial is "still heavily Republican". He now appears to have thrown overboard that assertion about San Bernardino. That is not surprising, given that:

San Bernardino has voted Republican in only 33% of the most recent presidential elections (as against 100% in Kern and 100% in Orange);

San Bernardino has voted Republican in only 44% of the most recent senatorial elections (as against 100% in Kern and 100% in Orange); and

San Bernardino has voted with the State as a whole in 71% of the most recent gubernatorial elections (as against 57% in Kern and 57% in Orange).

-------------------------

The data support my original assertions as I stated them: (1) "Imperial County actually leans strongly Democratic"; (2) "San Bernardino County is not heavily Republican, despite its Republican leanings"; and (3) "[e]ven Riverside County is not as heavily Republican as it is often made out to be".

Apparently, when the data support what I post, that makes me "just wrong."

[Sean]

Andrew, didn't you see?

Rubato has proclaimed that you are wrong. There's no coming back from that one!

[Lord Jim]

Andrew has made a very detailed and well thought out argument for the dismemberment of California...

The only problem with this of course is...

That absent something that fundamentally destabilizes the existence of the United States...

Like a landed invasion in force from China, (which they are unlikely to have the lift capability for, for at least the next 100 years...and why would they attempt it anyway?) or an attack from extraterrestrial malevolent alien space invaders, with technologies far greater than our own....(I rank this as unlikely...at least in the short term... )

The dissolution of the United States is not a scenario that is going to eventuate in the living memory of even the tiniest infant being born into the world today....

Talk about dividing California, or in any other way divvying up the US along any other lines other than the existing state ones is a complete college bull session discussion....Whether it comes from the Left or the Right...

Ain't gonna happen; no way no how....

[liberty]

Andrew, is it constitutionally possible to take back a people’s statehood, just thinking?

[liberty]

Perhaps this would work; I would be willing have Louisiana take on the odious duty of ruling California since they are incapable ruling themselves.

"An emergency financial manager with wide-ranging powers has been appointed for the troubled US city of Detroit, in the biggest state takeover for years. "

Or we could add to the territory of Nevada and Arizona so that at last Arizona would have ocean front property.


What do you think Jim?

[Andrew D]

Personally, I am not sufficiently confident in my own assertions to predict that an event which is within the realm even of long-term political possibilities will never happen.

But the "dissolution of the United States" bit is a canard. I am suggesting no such thing.

We did not dissolve the United States when we made what is now Kentucky out of what once was part of Virginia.

We did not dissolve the United States when we made what is now Maine out of what once was part of Massachusetts.

We did not dissolve the United States when we made what is now Tennessee out of what once was part of North Carolina.

We did not dissolve the United States (although many people were trying to) when we made what is now West Virginia out of what was once part of Virginia.

We did not dissolve the United States when we made part of what is now New Mexico out of what was once part of Texas.

We did not dissolve the United States when we made part of what is now Colorado out of what was once part of Texas.

We did not dissolve the United States when we made part of what is now Oklahoma out of what was once part of Texas.

We did not dissolve the United States when we made part of what is now Wyoming out of what was once part of Texas.

And all eight of those times when we carved States or parts of States out of existing States, I have no doubt that many people thought that the proposals to do that were mere bull sessions.

But then those things happened.

[Andrew D]

By the way, within my lifetime, a plan to split California passed the State Senate by a 69% majority.

So (unless one has access to grounds for certainty unavailable to the rest of us) one never knows ....

[liberty]

Even if the Californians could agree to divide their state it would also require a majority vote in the US congress. And the Republicans would never go along with it because it would give the Democrats two additional seats in Senate.

[dgs49]

This is all very interesting stuff, but speaking as one who has visited the Golden State many times and finds its politics entertaining, I wonder why both Andrew and rubato have confined themselves to a "two-state" scenario. It seems to me that the state is just as ripe for a division into three (or more) separate states, based on different core interests of the populations. Certainly, it seems that Southern California (basically from L.A. down to the Mexican Border) is a good candidate, but is the remainder of the state in any sense homogenous? San Francisco and Sacramento?

And why do you see political affiliation as the controlling factor? I say, make the division(s) according to similar economic interests and let the politics fall where it may. People are fickle and the political demographics of today are just that. Look at the major upheavals in Europe, where whole countries have shifted dramatically due to economic developments.

I am personally of the opinion that there is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that prevents a state which joined the Union voluntarily from departing voluntarily. I have read that the openness of this question is the main reason why Jeff Davis was never tried for treason after the WBS. The Attorney General was very concerned that the USSC might eventually rule that the South HAD A RIGHT TO SECEDE, thus rendering the WBS a totally unwarranted blood-letting.

And if the states can secede they certainly could petition Congress for partition. Who knows, if at least one "Republican" state could be foreseen, maybe it could fly. And that would resolve some of Andrew's angst about California's under-representation in the Senate.

[Scooter]

A person who always claims to know what is constitutional would have know that Article IV Section 3 explicitly gives state legislatures, with the approval of Congress, the right to partition themselves or to merge with other states.

But knowing that would have required reading the document at least once...

[rubato]

This is all very interesting stuff, but speaking as one who has visited the Golden State many times and finds its politics entertaining, I wonder why both Andrew and rubato have confined themselves to a "two-state" scenario. ... "

I haven't.

But I don't see any political interest in splitting the state at all right now. And we would lose a lot of economies of scale. California has led the world on vehicle pollution standards; many states now simply adopt the Calif. emissions standards and soon all will. A form of subsidy to the nation paid for by Calif.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... _standards

Motor vehicles

Due to its preexisting standards and particularly severe motor vehicle air pollution problems in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the U.S. state of California has special dispensation from the federal government to promulgate its own automobile emissions standards. Other states may choose to follow either the national standard or the stricter California standards. States adopting the California standards include Arizona (2012 model year),[1] Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico (2011 model year), New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.[2][3] Such states are frequently referred to as "CARB states" in automotive discussions because the regulations are defined by the California Air Resources Board.

The EPA has adopted the California emissions standards as a national standard by the 2016 model year[4] and is collaborating with California regulators on stricter national emissions standards for model years 2017–2025.[5]

We also have much better regulation of safety in chemical plants (see Texas where killing employees and raping the environment to save a few dollars is the std. ).

And I have mentioned, the very effective anti-smoking campaign in California which has reduced smoking rates in all demographic groups.

People who care about education will understand the importance of our university system which is growing a new campus in Merced and adding a medical school in Riverside.*

As the number of ways that individual human behavior effects the larger community increases the problems of regulation will become more, not less, difficult and will favor the economies of larger groups.

yrs,
rubato

* In 12-24 months it will be seen that the need for new MDs is acute.

[Andrew D]

Even if the Californians could agree to divide their state it would also require a majority vote in the US congress. And the Republicans would never go along with it because it would give the Democrats two additional seats in Senate.

Yes, the long-overdue division of California into two rational States would require the approval of Congress as well as that of the State legislature. As to the former, when the Democrats once again have majorities in both Houses -- including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, either by simple numbers or by longoverdue filibuster reform -- the Republicans' opionions will be (as they ought to be on most things) irrelevant.

As to the latter, there are demographic and political trends which increasingly militate in favor of rationally dividing California into two rational States. More about that later.

[Andrew D]

I wonder why ... Andrew ... [has]confined [himself] to a "two-state" scenario.

As discussed previously, South California would be a very big State, and North California would be a big State: South California would be second biggest State, and North California would be the fifth biggest State.

Californians are accustomed to being in a very, very, very big State. Politically speaking, splitting California into a very big State and a big State is one thing; splitting California into several small States is something else.

(As has been the case throughout, my assertions about size refer to population, not to land area.)

And why do you see political affiliation as the controlling factor?

As discussed previously, although regional politics are an important factor, they are not the only factor. My proposal also takes into account population distribution (which, of course, reflects economic connections):

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.

[dales]

One of the many diet plans that are now available.

[Andrew D]

Certainly, it seems that Southern California (basically from L.A. down to the Mexican Border) is a good candidate, but is the remainder of the state in any sense homogenous? San Francisco and Sacramento?

Why would San Francisco and Sacramento have trouble being constitutent parts of a new North California? San Francisco is, of course, more liberal than Sacramento; San Francisco is more liberal than most places.

But Sacramento is not a right-wing paradise. Indeed, its reputation, such as it is, for being conservative depends largely on its being in overall-left-of-center California.

Consider eighteen elections -- six each of the most recent presidential elections, the most recent general senatorial elections, and the most recent general gubernatorial elections. Unsurprisingly, San Francisco voted Democratic in all eighteen of those elections.

But Sacramento was not far behind: It voted Democratic in more than three fourths (fourteen (77.78%)) of those elections.

And the variance was only in gubernatorial elections. Sacramento and San Francisco both voted Democratic in six of six presidential elections and in six of six regular senatorial elections.

In contrast, Sacramento voted Republican in four of the last six regular gubernatorial elections. (San Francisco, to no one's shock, voted Democratic in all six of them.) But Sacramento voted the same way as did California as a whole in five of those six elections.

Contrast that against the South California counties of Kern and Orange: Both voted Republican in all eighteen of those elections.

Los Angeles, on the other hand, voted Democratic in all six presidential elections, all six regular senatorial elections, and five of six regular gubernatorial elections. (And in the only regular gubernatorial election in which Los Angeles voted Republican, so did California as a whole, and by a bigger margin than did Los Angeles.)

And yet dgs49 agrees with me that splitting the southernmost ten counties of California -- "basically from L.A. down to the Mexican Border" -- is a reasonable way of dividing the State (assuming a division into two States, on which he does not agree with me).

It seems to me that keeping super-liberal San Francisco and not-so-liberal Sacramento in North California makes at least as much political sense as does keeping liberal Los Angeles and super-reactionary Kern and Orange in South California.

And both of those alternatives surely make more political sense than does keeping super-liberal San Francisco and super-reactionary Kern and Orange in one undivided California.

Again, however, political affiliations are far from the only factor. I remain of the opinion that turning California's ten southernmost counties into South California and California's other counties into North California is the best available option.