Why California still hasn't split on 2 states? (San Diego, San Francisco: homes, to buy)

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Ah, yes! Northern Baja!

I called them West Arizona haha

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Ok, let's look at the two schools of thought here for splitting the state. As I mentioned, water distribution is under federal control so that's a non issue.

North-South split:
Makes the most sense should it happen at all. Both regions would have large cities and rural areas. Both would have farming; the San Joaquin Valley for Northern CA and Imperial Valley for Southern CA. Both would have thriving tech industries; Silicon Valley and Tech Coast. This split is not only the historical one but it leaves both with diverse economies and neither would really be dependent on the other or on the federal government. Now...

East-West Split: Most of the population centers in the west. Most of the economic weight also in the west. East would be almost completely dependent on farming which could not sustain an economy large enough for it's population. All shipping ports, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco would be in the west. Now this won't stop the east from getting goods but all of those jobs that come with the ports would now be heavily concentrated in one state along with the majority of the other jobs like in tech, health care, finance, transportation etc. The east, like so many other states like it would become dependent on the federal government to ensure that it didn't implode, sort of like Mississippi. This idea of an East-West California is intellectually bankrupt.

A north/south split would not make sense because both north and south would politically be similar to each other and to how California is now. Part of the reason for dividing California is to change the political culture. An east/west split would have massive implications for the political culture of the state and the nation. It would make it much more difficult for a Democratic president to be elected.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by majoun

A north/south split would not make sense because both north and south would politically be similar to each other and to how California is now. Part of the reason for dividing California is to change the political culture. An east/west split would have massive implications for the political culture of the state and the nation. It would make it much more difficult for a Democratic president to be elected.

Political reasons are not good for splitting because, political boundaries change. What then happens if everyone gets their way then one part of the new political utopia begins taking on characteristics of the state that they left? Then, in order to maintain things, they would have to change the boundaries again. Also, a populace's political leanings in the real world don't follow the neat straight lines most are obsessed with drawing on maps but the lines are irregular just as any natural distribution. So we would be dealing with changing political climates over time, plus drawing boundaries to try to minimize infiltration of the dreaded other side. So as far as I'm concerned, political reasons aren't good enough.

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

I don't think they'd have to. Most of the rainfall in the state is on the west coast, and other major sources of surface water entirely depend on where you make the split between east and west California. Hillbilly is presuming the split would be where east California owned most of the water. He's ignoring the fact that most of the educated people in the state are on the west coast, and would probably negotiate a little better than that.

But hey, there's still gambling and prostitution, right?

Fair enough, I did simplify my assumptions a lot too. How about gambling for water?!

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yeah fine and all that for that. But what about the Big Bang?

That gets its special exception as the big start of a cosmic-scale party.

Originally Posted by StandingLenticular

LA / San Diego is in East CA! See?
<map with a straight line drawn through it>

I chuckled. This wasn't a serious political suggestion, I think. Right?

Other than that, discovering how Reno, Fresno, and Santa Barbara lines up so perfectly has been good for recalibrating my mental map of California. For some reason I keep mentally putting Fresno further east, right next to Death Valley.

Originally Posted by majoun

A north/south split would not make sense because both north and south would politically be similar to each other and to how California is now. Part of the reason for dividing California is to change the political culture. An east/west split would have massive implications for the political culture of the state and the nation. It would make it much more difficult for a Democratic president to be elected.

In other words, gerrymandering on a national scale?

I'm not convinced creating a hypothetical eastern portion will help anything but my information is limited.

Sure there's plenty of complaints about Sacramento and the coast. Suppose we put aside the formalities of secession (like the impossible Congressional fight) and of how water is controlled: What city or successes from today could "East California" point to in order to demonstrate that they have the leadership and working models for success that would make them better off than the current California?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

For some reason I keep mentally putting Fresno further east, right next to Death Valley.

Fresno IS the Valley of Death.

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

In other words, gerrymandering on a national scale?

Splitting up California has always had its foundation in gerrymandering. It's always rural conservatives pouting over liberal politics and wanting to make their own little utopia of tax free, church endorsed gun toting. Personally, just like I'm in favor of letting the South secede, I'd love to give "East California" their little reservation just for the pure enjoyment of watching them go bankrupt.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

Splitting up California has always had its foundation in gerrymandering. It's always rural conservatives pouting over liberal politics and wanting to make their own little utopia of tax free, church endorsed gun toting. Personally, just like I'm in favor of letting the South secede, I'd love to give "East California" their little reservation just for the pure enjoyment of watching them go bankrupt.

I would too but unlike the south which would leave the country, East CA would just be one more broke state the rest of us would have to pay for. Rather than East California, just call it West Mississippi.

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I would too but unlike the south which would leave the country, East CA would just be one more broke state the rest of us would have to pay for. Rather than East California, just call it West Mississippi.

Good point! I forgot about that part.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by majoun

A north/south split would not make sense because both north and south would politically be similar to each other and to how California is now. Part of the reason for dividing California is to change the political culture. An east/west split would have massive implications for the political culture of the state and the nation. It would make it much more difficult for a Democratic president to be elected.

Political tantrums do not a good new state make. Especially when the others would have to pay to keep such ill-conceived fodder afloat.

[Jay100]

Originally Posted by Ubzar

I think it should have been split 100 years ago but it's too late now. I would NOT vote a split. There's too much history and there's a certain cache about being part of the greatest state in the USA. If we split now, we're only half as good. lol Vote down.