Do you think California will be split in two? (Los Angeles: compensation, living)

[miyu]

Nobody will want to claim central california, hehehe.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by majoun

I'm very familiar with "Chinatown".One of the great Los Angeles movies.

However, Los Angeles could ease its debt by selling the water rights to the Owens Valley and Eastern Sierra.

Well the movie is a fictionalization of what really happened...

But L.A. sell the water rights for the Eastern Sierra? Dream on. That's like a lung cancer victim selling his oxygen bottle.

Ain't gonna happen. We own it, and we'd die if we sold it.

[pjg66]

Originally Posted by Lifeshadower

Maybe California needs to split itself 50 more times so we get majority representation in the Senate.

The Western states in general have not learned (or maybe they don't care) what the New England states have known for a long time. By having lots of smaller states with 2 senators per state, the region has a lot of power in the U.S. Senate,

New England with a total population of 14.4 million (2009 estimate) and a land area of 62.8 thousand sq. mi, has 12 votes in Senate, while California with a population of 36.9 million and a land area of 155.9 thousand sq. mi. has 2 votes.

Of course, the rest of the country would never tolerate two or more Californias gaining more power in the Senate. I say this as a non-Californian who very much likes your state and wishes it well in emerging from its present woes (I love LA!).

Anyway, it's fascinating to watch a modern Civil War, California style.

[Lifeshadower]

Doesn't hurt to post this again (it's an amalgamation of all these different posts I have made in the past);

Southern California (along the 35'46 N line with Inyo and Mono Counties for Eastern Sierras)
Population: 23,418,460
Area: ~70,000 square miles (current counties of Inyo, Mono, San Luis Obispo, Kern, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, Imperial, Orange, and San Diego)
Economic Size: ~$1.1 trillion (per capita: $49,612)

Northern California
Population: 14,874,227
Area: 93,000 square miles (remainder of California)
Economic Size: ~$700 billion (per capita: $47,061)

Economically, this split would be fair because Northern and Southern California would still remain top 5 economies and top 5 states by population in the US. (SoCal would be 2nd, NorCal would be 5th)

OR an East-West Split

Coastal California (minus Orange and San Diego Counties)
Population: ~18,600,000
Area: ~30,000 square miles
Economic Size: $1.2 trillion (per capita: $64,516)

Inland California
Population: ~19,400,000
Area: ~133,000 square miles
Economic Size: $600 billion (per capita: $35,905)

Inland California would be an EXTREMELY poor state, but reliably conservative! While the latter would be growing more in population, it wouldn't be getting as rich as Coastal California.

Inland CA would be ranked 3rd in population, but be ranked 6th in gross state product, while Coastal California would be 4th in population but 1st in gross state product (fighting it out with Texas).

If Northern and Southern California were states, BOTH would be reliably blue states. I'll use the 2008 US Presidential election as an example [not indicative since it was kind of a weird year].
(Source: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/...-by-county.pdf (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/ssov/4-pres-statewide-summary-by-county.pdf - broken link))

California:
Obama: 8,274,473 (61.01% of the vote)
McCain: 5,011,781 (36.95% of the vote)

Northern California:
Obama: 3,635,898 (65.45% of the Northern CA vote)
McCain: 1,919,640 (35.55% of the Northern CA vote)

Southern California:
Obama: 4,638,575 (60.0% of the Southern CA vote)
McCain: 3,092,141 (40.0% of the Southern CA vote)

Both pretty liberal states when it comes down to it, mostly because the population is clustered along the coast around LA and SF (the two most liberal areas in the state). Now compare that to Inland and Coastal CA:

Coastal California
Obama: 4,855,861 (70.6% of the Coastal vote)
McCain: 2,025,638 (29.4% of the Coastal vote)

Inland California (plus San Diego and Orange Counties)
Obama: 3,418,612 (53.3% of the Inland vote)
McCain: 2,986,413 (46.7% of the Inland vote)

Keep in mind that the 2008 election was a weird year. In usual years, Inland California would be a lot more red.

In terms of racial diversity, here's what it looks like:

California (California - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008)
42.6% Non-Hispanic White
36.1% Hispanic
12.4% Asian and Pacific Islander
6.0% Non-Hispanic Black
2.1% Two or More Races
27.1% Foreign Born (55.3% Latin America, 34.2% Asia, 6.9% Europe, 1.5% Africa, 1.4% Canada, 0.8% Oceania)

Northern California
Non Hispanic White: 7,808,969 (52.5%)
Hispanic: 3,807,852 (25.6%)
Asian and Pacific Islander: 2,104,593 (14.2%)
Black: 782,249 (5.3%)
Two or More Races: 360,883 (2.4%)

Foreign Born: 3,416,674 (23.1% Foreign Born; of which 9.2% Europe, 45.4% Asia, 40.9% Latin America, 1.6% Africa, 1.3% Oceania, 1.5% Northern America )

Southern California
Non Hispanic White: 9,853,039 (42.0%)
Hispanic: 9,353,126 (39.9%)
Asian and Pacific Islander: 2,427,646 (10.4%)
Black: 1,359,530 (5.8%)
Two or More Races: 393,705 (1.6%)

Foreign Born: 6,438,833 (27.5% Foreign Born; of which 5.6% Europe, 29.9% Asia, 61.2% Latin America, 1.4% Africa, <1% Oceania, 1.2% Northern America )

To expand on the political organization of each state:
http://www.cookpolitical.com/sites/default/files/pvistate.pdf (broken link)
http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...ng-states.html

California, as a whole, has a rating of D + 7 (meaning that in California, the Democrats will win at a rate of 7 points HIGHER than the national average vote for the Democrats)

Northern California would consist of districts 1-21 (with some modifications)
Southern California would consist of districts 22-53 (with some modifications)

Northern California would have a political rating of D +10.8
Southern California would have a political rating of D +6.8

Coastal California (Los Angeles County north to the northern border of the Bay Area) would consist of districts 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
Inland California would be the remaining 28 districts

Coastal California would have a rating of D +20.25 (by comparison, the most Democrat leaning state has a rating of D+13)
Inland California would have a rating of R+3.1, akin to North Carolina or Missouri. It would probably be a large swing state.

It's fun pondering these "what if's", but neither scenario would happen. However, if it were to happen, I think most Californians conceptualize a North-South split, rather than an East-West split DESPITE making a whole lot more sense.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

Los Angeles owns the water rights for the Owens Valley. Look it up. Admire the name of William Mulholland. We Los Angelinos own the Eastern Sierra. It's all history now, even in movies.

I don't admire what was done in ... what was it, the '20s? But we own the Eastern Sierra, and in fact in my humble opinion we sucked it dry. I have friends there and I sympathize with them, but what was done is what is now, and Los Angeles owns the Eastern Sierra.

Now who's being nit-picky?

Most of the Sierra watershed (from near Alturas to the Owens Valley) is claimed by northern can and that's where the lions share of the water is.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by pjg66

The Western states in general have not learned (or maybe they don't care) what the New England states have known for a long time. By having lots of smaller states with 2 senators per state, the region has a lot of power in the U.S. Senate,

New England with a total population of 14.4 million (2009 estimate) and a land area of 62.8 thousand sq. mi, has 12 votes in Senate, while California with a population of 36.9 million and a land area of 155.9 thousand sq. mi. has 2 votes.

Of course, the rest of the country would never tolerate two or more Californias gaining more power in the Senate. I say this as a non-Californian who very much likes your state and wishes it well in emerging from its present woes (I love LA!).

Anyway, it's fascinating to watch a modern Civil War, California style.

The thing is, California is more diverse politically than the whole of New England so splitting it wouldn't necessarily create "more Californias" with voting power. Just look at the House Of Reps. Many of the California reps are as much at odds with one another as New England is with the south.

[SacTown11]

State of Jefferson.

It will never happen. Dividing the state would mean figuring out how much deficit each should carry on. The south would likely vote to stick the north with most of it and then the deal would fall apart. Besides, why destroy such a wonderful social utopia?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by SacTown11

State of Jefferson.

It will never happen. Dividing the state would mean figuring out how much deficit each should carry on. The south would likely vote to stick the north with most of it and then the deal would fall apart. Besides, why destroy such a wonderful social utopia?

Some (but not all) of the plans for a State of Jefferson also involve splitting up Oregon as well as California, with it including Southern Oregon as well as California's far north.

Splitting up Oregon as well would complicate matters further.

If there was a split between Western and Eastern California, Eastern California would probably resemble politically and culturally a cross between Oregon and Arizona with a little Texas thrown in. Such a split would make sense to me - even though I have family throughout the state, almost all would be in Western California.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Now who's being nit-picky?

Most of the Sierra watershed (from near Alturas to the Owens Valley) is claimed by northern can and that's where the lions share of the water is.

Yeah, but we in Southern California own the Owens Valley water rights. You saw the movie and the movie was based upon reality. NoCal can claim it all they like but SoCal owns it. It's been that way for more than a century.

Any state split won't change that.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by majoun

Some (but not all) of the plans for a State of Jefferson also involve splitting up Oregon as well as California, with it including Southern Oregon as well as California's far north.

Dream on. Siamese twins. Won't happen. Not in this reality.