Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What was wrong about my statement that needed corrected? I said for you to research all the elections where the Pop vote didn't match the Electoral vote ... You stated ONE 2000, when there were FOUR ... 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
JonnyMack, I didn't research all the elections where the popular vote didn't match the electoral vote. I you want to know, feel free to do your own research. Since 2000 was the only one that I voted in where this occurred I mentioned that year...
"Venture capitalist Tim Draper of Silicon Valley has filed paperwork for a November ballot measure that would divide California into six states, calling the Golden State as presently constituted 'too big and bloated.' Mr. Draper’s proposed six states are called, from north to south: Jefferson, North California, Silicon Valley, Central California, West California, and South California. His money will be needed: Proponents need to collect 1 million signatures just to get the idea on the ballot this fall. If the six-state initiative passes in California, residents would have three years to discuss whether the proposed borders make sense for them."
Good idea or bad idea? Who would benefit? Who would lose? Is it do-able? Would the feds interfere? (Consider that President Obama would be out of office if this actually happened so don't make his administration a reason for liking/not liking it.) Tell us if you are from California when answering.
Basically, I think it's ridiculous. As a former San Diegan, I can say the problem with California as a whole is liberalism. I don't see how breaking it up into six states will solve that.
Every state in the west is the same with large urban populations that dominate the economic and political life of the state. If we starting breaking off rural areas that feel disenfranchised, we could have about 40 states west of the Pecos. Let's not forget though, that it is those urban centers that are paying the bill for the rural areas. Without them, the rural areas would simply be more impoverished and hopeless than they already are in the west. They would be "free" though.
This isn't just happening in the West. My state, NY, has had this issue for more than a century. So have Illinois and Massachusetts. Pennsylvania is dominated by Philly and Pittsburgh, and this trend is moving south and west. The cities in states like Georgia, Nebraska, Missouri, etc all dominate the rural areas in their states.
If all these states that have disaffected areas were allowed to become their own states, they'd not only be economic basket cases, there'd be more agitation for smaller disaffected areas wanting to be their own states. When does it stop? When there's 100 states? 150? That's why it won't happen. If 1 state is allowed to be split into parts, it would open the floodgates, so the federal government will never do that.
It would be great for the people of California because it would give them more voice in government and allow the different sections of the State to gain the representation that they now lack.
The problem is it does nothing to profit corporations or to enhance government power, so it does not have a chance of happening.
If that's the goal then there is already a proposal to increase the size of the state legislature to add more representatives. One of the big problems right now is that districts are so god damned big you have to a multimillionaire or in the pocket of lobbyists in order to effectively run for office. If the districts were smaller regular people could actually get elected via old fashioned going door to door and introducing themselves to people. This would also make it harder for special interests to gerrymander districts, buy off legislators with PAC money, or other wise corrupt the political process.
I think we would all be better off if Cali just went ahead and broke off into their own country. We won't tell them how to live and they won't be able to enact terrible laws that inevitably spread their way east.
Naw, the red states, for all their endless whining and carping, won't let their meal ticket slip away. They love sucking up tax dollars from large, wealthy, urban states like California even as they are envious and resentful of the hand which feeds them. Yet propose cutting off their endless amounts of pork and welfare paid for by states like California and watch the righties squeal like stuck pigs.
I think we would all be better off if Cali just went ahead and broke off into their own country. We won't tell them how to live and they won't be able to enact terrible laws that inevitably spread their way east.
Because you think giving up 14% of the country's GDP is a smart move?
Naw, the red states, for all their endless whining and carping, won't let their meal ticket slip away. They love sucking up tax dollars from large, wealthy, urban states like California even as they are envious and resentful of the hand which feeds them. Yet propose cutting off their endless amounts of pork and welfare paid for by states like California and watch the righties squeal like stuck pigs.
I agree 100%
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
