Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

#41

Post by BryantD »

mktgtheweb wrote: post #33
BryantD wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's for a more strong separation between rich and poor California. This plan would create the nation's poorest state by per capita income (Central California), and I think Jefferson would also be in the bottom 10. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/02/05/rich-stat... http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm (per capita income list as of 2012)

Actually, you think Central CA would be the poorest, although that's assuming policy remains unchanged. Imagine a conservative state within 1+ hr drive of the bay area, that could eliminate personal income tax attracting workers from Silicon Valley, affordable housing, better weather, water control (delta), and agriculture.

Yes, I do, because I'm from New England so I don't have to imagine those things. I've lived in New Hampshire: a conservative state within an hour drive of Boston with no personal income tax and housing that's way more affordable than Boston. These factors don't magically make it more affluent than Boston.

Re: Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

#42

Post by protomyth »

dllthomas wrote: post #36
tansey wrote: post #16

Good luck convincing the rest of the country to give your region 10 new senators.

Stacking small states until you have CA's population, you have enough senators to sustain a filibuster. We have 2. This is both undemocratic and unreasonable.

The Senate isn't supposed to be democratic, that is what the House is for.

Re: Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

#43

Post by twoodfin »

dllthomas wrote: post #36
tansey wrote: post #16

Good luck convincing the rest of the country to give your region 10 new senators.

Stacking small states until you have CA's population, you have enough senators to sustain a filibuster. We have 2. This is both undemocratic and unreasonable.

The undemocratic part was considered a feature, not a bug.

As to unreasonable: It's a rare issue that unites the smaller states. From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart. So I am not persuaded by arguments that assume there is a threat of a small-state Senate alliance against the overwhelming wishes of the rest of the country.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that overuse of the filibuster has put an inordinate amount of legislative power in the hands of the Senate majority leader and a dozen middle-of-the-road Senators, I agree. But the solution to that problem is to fix the filibuster, not destroy the Constitutional balance between states and the Federal government.

Re: Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

#44

Post by dllthomas »

protomyth wrote: post #40
dllthomas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am more interested in water policy once a split occurs. I would imagine some desalination plants would finally be built." I agree, although there are some desalinization plants already.

I'm figuring once LA and SF have no political influence over the former CA farmland, there are going to be more.

I agree; I was just clarifying.

Re: Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

#45

Post by dllthomas »

protomyth wrote: post #42
dllthomas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stacking small states until you have CA's population, you have enough senators to sustain a filibuster. We have 2. This is both undemocratic and unreasonable.

The Senate isn't supposed to be democratic, that is what the House is for.

That's the way the system was designed, yes, and I'm not failing to understand that. That doesn't change the fact that it is undemocratic, and if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration. More is not always better, but at extremes it's a concern. I'm not saying we should turn the Senate into a purely democratic body. I'm saying that when we consider how we draw our state lines "how democratic it makes the Senate" is one relevant factor. As I said, it is also unreasonable.

Re: Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

#46

Post by dllthomas »

twoodfin wrote: post #43
dllthomas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stacking small states until you have CA's population, you have enough senators to sustain a filibuster. We have 2. This is both undemocratic and unreasonable.

The undemocratic part was considered a feature, not a bug. As to unreasonable: It's a rare issue that unites the smaller states. From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart. So I am not persuaded by arguments that assume there is a threat of a small-state Senate alliance against the overwhelming wishes of the rest of the country. On the other hand, if you want to argue th…

Undemocratic is a feature and a bug. It shifts over firmly into "bug" territory when it gets too extreme.

"From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart."

Vermont and Wyoming are strongly united on a number of issues (guns immediately springs to mind). I'm not the least bit sure that Central California and Silicon Valley would be united on fewer. The notion that Vermont and New Hampshire should be separate; Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhodes Island should be separate; Maryland and Virginia should be separate; but Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all belong in the same state is laughable.

"But the solution to that problem is to fix the filibuster, not destroy the Constitutional balance between states and the Federal government."

Right, because when they wrote the Constitution, Jefferson and Madison and friends carefully laid out California's borders.

When California entered the Union, its population was less than 1% of the total US population. Now it's well more than 10%. The borders that made sense when it was a state like Wyoming don't make sense anymore. It has population like the eastern seaboard, it has industry like the eastern seaboard, it should have borders more like the eastern seaboard.

Re: Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

#47

Post by protomyth »

dllthomas wrote: post #45
protomyth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Senate isn't supposed to be democratic, that is what the House is for.

That's the way the system was designed, yes, and I'm not failing to understand that. That doesn't change the fact that it is undemocratic, and if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration. More is not always better, but at extremes it's a concern. I'm not saying we should turn the Senate into a purely democratic body. I'm saying that when we consider how we draw our state lines "how democra…

"if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration"

I don't think we've ever valued democracy for its own sake. The founders were much more focused on the States and checks and balances. Democracy had to fit into that framework.

[Edit] the proper rights of a British subject became the proper rights of an American citizen and should affect the House directly.

Re: Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

#48

Post by dllthomas »

protomyth wrote: post #47
dllthomas wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the way the system was designed, yes, and I'm not failing to understand that. That doesn't change the fact that it is undemocratic, and if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration. More is not always better, but at extremes it's a concern. I'm not saying we should turn the Senate into a purely democratic body. I'm saying that when we consider how we draw our state lines "how democra…

"if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration" I don't think we've ever valued democracy for its own sake. The founders were much more focused on the States and checks and balances. Democracy had to fit into that framework. [Edit] the proper rights of a British subject became the proper rights of an American citizen and should affect the House directly.

"The founders were much more focused on the States and checks and balances."

First, quite obviously, the borders of California were no part of that deliberation.

Second, the focuses of the founders don't have to be our own. They had legitimate concerns, of which we should also not lose sight, but that doesn't mean democracy is an illegitimate concern.

Re: Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

#49

Post by protomyth »

dllthomas wrote: post #44
protomyth wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm figuring once LA and SF have no political influence over the former CA farmland, there are going to be more.

I agree; I was just clarifying.

Actually, I only saw Carlsbad desalination plant and it isn't done. It seems like this article http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Desalination-plants-a-pri... shows none completed.

Re: Plan To Split California Into Six States Gets OK To Gather Signatures

#50

Post by dllthomas »

protomyth wrote: post #49
dllthomas wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree; I was just clarifying.

Actually, I only saw Carlsbad desalination plant and it isn't done. It seems like this article http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Desalination-plants-a-pri... shows none completed.

Hm, Wikipedia says "California has also begun producing a small amount of desalinated water, water that was once sea water, but has been purified." That may need a "citation needed", at least - at a skim I'm not seeing support for it.
Post reply on HN