What would happen if one day CA divides in two states? (living, rated)

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by spotlesseden

Los Angeles to Sonoma, including Santa Barbara, Monterey and possibly Sacramento, separate and form a new state (let's call it West California)

This doesn't make sense. Sacramento is not even close to LA. Sacramento should go with SF. Maybe two new states can call NorCal and SoCal. Not East and West.

If you recall the OP's original post, you'll remember the entire purpose of an east/west split would be to redistrict voting blocks so that California's conservatives could have a majority in one of those areas. That's why they said to put all the liberal areas (SF, LA, etc) in one state, and the less liberal areas (Sacramento, OC, SD, etc) in another. Dividing into North/South wouldn't change anything for that purpose. How a state would theoretically be divided depends on the purpose of doing so. And there's no reason a division would have to be north/south vs. east/west. Just look at Chile in South America. It's super narrow and long.

All that being said, it's purely hypothetical and will likely never happen either way.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by wburg

Sacramento is also a very liberal city, while some coastal high-population areas like San Diego and Orange County are very conservative, so it isn't really that simple.

FYI, while OC is largely conservative, San Diego's image as being similarly conservative is actually somewhat of a myth. The Union-Tribune recently reported that the city (not the entire county) of San Diego has been predominantly Democrat since the 1960s and has consistently voted for Democratic presidents (although oddly, never for mayors). That's California's second largest single city and makes up half of the county's population. And while the county as a whole has traditionally been Reepublican, it's only been so narrowly, and just recently switched by several thousand voter registrations to being a blue county. While that line may shift back and forth a few more times, it's clearly trending towards becoming a Democratic county for good. If you haven't spent much time here, you'll find it not that different from most parts of California, and substantially different than OC.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by tstieber

FYI, while OC is largely conservative, San Diego's image as being similarly conservative is actually somewhat of a myth. The Union-Tribune recently reported that the city (not the entire county) of San Diego has been predominantly Democrat since the 1960s and has consistently voted for Democratic presidents (although oddly, never for mayors). That's California's second largest single city and makes up half of the county's population. And while the county as a whole has traditionally been Reepublican, it's only been so narrowly, and just recently switched by several thousand voter registrations to being a blue county. While that line may shift back and forth a few more times, it's clearly trending towards becoming a Democratic county for good. If you haven't spent much time here, you'll find it not that different from most parts of California, and substantially different than OC.

Haven't been there at all, but have known a few San Diego Republicans, who tend to be that rapidly-disappearing bird, the moderate "cloth coat" Republicans, and considering that they are being hounded out of their own party, it's not surprising that some are re-registering as Democrats. I'm not a Democrat or Republican but can hang out with the ones the baggers call a "RINO."

But you just lumped Sacramento into the "less liberal areas" of the state:

That's why they said to put all the liberal areas (SF, LA, etc) in one state, and the less liberal areas (Sacramento, OC, SD, etc) in another.

when Sacramento has been consistently Democrat pretty much since the Democrats became the "liberal" party--mayor, city council, county supervisor, state assembly, state senate, US Congress are all Democrats, votes for US Senate and President all for Democrats. There was one Republican on the City Council until recently, but he originally got elected through the support of the gay community, so he wasn't exactly super right-wing. So if San Diego votes Dem for president but not its mayor, that puts SD to the right of Sacramento, if only by a short distance. Sacramento is only the seventh or eighth-largest city in the state, but its population is about half the population of its county too, which makes up about half of its metro area. The county is mostly Democrat too, but less so than the city--they shifted Republican in the 1980s but voted 58% Dem in 2008.

[Carlite]

I agree that this is very unlikely to happen--no state has ever divided, even Texas, which I understand has the right to do so under federal law. It's a mental exercise. But if you did want to divide California, it would make more sense to have an East California and a West California, than a north and south. The strongest differences in politics, culture, economy, music etc. are between the east and west. The last "north-south" split proposal put Los Angeles County in the "north", because the proponent didn't want LA to be a liberal voting bloc in his southern state.

[Ultrarunner]

North South would most likely need 3 separate areas...

SF doesn't care for LA and Northern CA doesn't care for SF... no region wants to be without coastal access or mountains.

[Elle Oh Elle]

IMO, this would have happened already, like way back when they first achieved statehood. While I would believe the split to make things much more manageable, there would be far too much work involved (ex. changing all the current "California"s to "North California" and "South California", especially the numerous legal matters which is a long process that can take as long as years). Besides that, I've been to both parts of the state and do not think they are so different from each other as to qualify for split.

[wburg]

Having people with different opinions in one state doesn't "qualify" a state to be split. Texas doesn't have the right to split into more than one state, just an option in their constitution to leave the union (which they tried once, didn't work so well.) I think conservatives just like the idea because it would give them another "red" state with two more senators and more electoral votes.

How about we combine Idaho, Montana and Wyoming into one state instead? Combined, their population is about three-quarters of the city of Los Angeles.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Elle Oh Elle

IMO, this would have happened already, like way back when they first achieved statehood. While I would believe the split to make things much more manageable, there would be far too much work involved (ex. changing all the current "California"s to "North California" and "South California", especially the numerous legal matters which is a long process that can take as long as years). Besides that, I've been to both parts of the state and do not think they are so different from each other as to qualify for split.

Not so much north and south, but decidedly east to west.

[BobsGL1800]

Not this again!

[sll3454]

Originally Posted by Carlite

I agree that this is very unlikely to happen--no state has ever divided, even Texas, . . .

Virginia split into Virginia and West Virginia during the 1860s.
West Virginia: History — FactMonster.com