SACRAMENTO — Two leaders of the successful referendum to remove Britain from the European Union were recently in California, where they said favorable things about the newest version of a plan to split the state in pieces. As Arron Banks told a British newspaper , “It’s the world’s sixth largest economy, and it’s very badly run.” He isn’t the only person to believe that a breakup may be the best way to solve California’s intractable problems.
Some news reports about the Yes California independence campaign used the term “Calexit,” which makes for good headlines because it sounds like “Brexit,” but it’s confusing. Some left-leaning activists indeed are pushing a far-fetched “Calexit” idea to create a new California nation , something that has gained publicity after Donald Trump’s victory shocked Democratic-dominant California. This Yes California campaign has a ballpark-zero chance of gaining traction. It’s mostly about venting.
While creating a new nation would tear the United States asunder, redrawing state boundaries is nowhere near as unthinkable — or as dangerous — as some suggest.
“We should explore creating more states so we have a democracy that’s closer to the people,” said Scott Baugh, a former Republican assemblyman who met with Mr. Banks and Nigel Farage when they were in Orange County to receive an award. California has nearly 40 million people and is growing. At what point is the population too large for a single state? he wondered in a recent interview. That’s a question Californians have been asking since the early days of the state’s existence.
When a motley crew of American settlers, native-born “Californios” and European immigrants assembled in Monterey in 1849 for a constitutional conventio n, there was wide disagreement about where to put the eastern boundary for the proposed state of California. Some wanted an enormous state that would have encompassed a lot of modern-day Utah.
Since California achieved statehood in 1850, residents have floated dozens of plans to break it up. A proposed 2016 measure to carve it into six states, which did not make it onto the ballot, was initiated by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Tim Draper , who also is behind the effort that Mr. Banks and Mr. Farage recommended. News reports suggest his latest plan is to largely split the state east to west, but Mr. Draper told me his idea has no specific boundaries yet.
“We are doing deep research on everything from infrastructure to higher education to safety to water to the electric grid to politics to income levels to health care,” Mr. Draper said.
I’ve flown the State of Jefferson flag at my little ranch, a reminder of a continuing partition movement dating to World War II. Residents of California’s northern counties and Oregon’s southern counties complain that their tiny populations’ concerns get short shrift here in Sacramento and in Salem, Ore. It’s now mainly a California movement to create one separate state in the far north. Some Jefferson backers say it’s basically a cry for help from a region suffering joblessness and an eroding tax base.
As an example, a group of elected sheriffs met in Yreka, Calif., a few years ago, where they vowed to defy rules limiting public access within publicly owned lands. It was an astounding act of frustration at federal and state land-use policies that didn’t consider the concerns of local residents. But their meeting never gained attention in either state capital. These rural areas in the “north state” have watched their timber, fishing and mining industries dry up, and many officials in that region blame environmental policies that are drafted with dense urban areas in mind.
Yreka is the county seat of Siskiyou, which is physically larger than Los Angeles County , but its population of 44,000 is dwarfed by the latter’s 10 million residents. How do residents of a small-population county get their voices heard in a state where one of 58 counties is more populous than 41 other states? For additional perspective, San Bernardino County is larger geographically than New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island combined.
And it’s not just a problem in California’s desolate regions. Even Democratic officials in the blue-collar San Joaquin Valley , a four-million-population region where oil-drilling and agriculture are major industries, are often at odds with their party’s priorities. Hard-pressed industrial cities in California such as Fresno and Bakersfield are world’s away from Santa Barbara and Napa Valley. Residents of Orange, San Diego and Riverside counties are often frustrated by the outsize influence of nearby Los Angeles.
Like many Californians, I haven’t embraced any particular proposal, but there’s no reason current boundaries can’t be adjusted to meet the needs of a changing population. Residents of Chico could still visit San Francisco on the weekend, just as I can now travel to Reno, Nev., to play the slots. But a partitioned California — or Texas or Florida, for that matter — could improve millions of people’s chances at self-government. It would also make sense on a federal level given that nearly 40 million Californians are represented by two senators — the same number that represent Wyoming, which has fewer than 600,000 residents.
Some readers may scoff at this seemingly pie-in-the-sky notion, but state boundaries have long been fluid and even illogical . People also thought Brexit was an impossible idea. But state boundaries aren’t sacrosanct. Maybe it’s time to reduce political division by adjusting the political lines.
-----------------------------------
RED RULES apply:
Be polite No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
Be smart and stay on-topic Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic and will be deleted.
-----------------------------------
The topics are: - The advantages and disadvantages in breaking up large states into smaller ones. - The impact on the nation as a whole of moving to "flexible" state boundaries.
- Be polite. No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None! - Be smart and stay on topic. Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic, and will be deleted.
Lots of trees and some good places to grow pot. Also a lot of water. Some of the reasons the State legislature will never vote to let it go and they need that (I believe 3/4ths votes) to happen plus approval from the U.S. Congress. It's not going to happen.
Actually we here get our water from five deep wells owned by the Myoma Water Company which basically just serves Bermuda Dunes. The rest of the desert communities make deals for water sharing and leased land (a large part of Palm Springs is leased Indian land and the lease is going to be up in 2020) with The Morongo Band of Mission Indians and The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. We're sort of on the sidelines watching.
Ifind the notion of "water wells belonging to" very distressing. I'm glad no one has figured out how to take possession possession of the air we breathe.
Well, water is a finite resource, and a utility gets a free pass, sort of, as they provide the water for everyone else. Maybe we can all be glad that we don't have to rely on wells on our own property.... What bugs me more is that private companies, like Nestle, wants to supply water for homes. The cost will be astronomical!
I don't mind a collectivity - city or county or whatever - managing water distribution. Butthe idea of a private company owning groundwater is... disgusting.
I don't understand riparian rights, as they apply out west, which is different than it is applied to here in the Midwest.
Basically, here, you "own" the rights to the water beneath your property. If a utility or business dewaters your well, they are bound by law to replace it. It seems to work fairly well here, even though there are times when it has to be enforced.
I once worked for a coal company to investigate a private well that had been drilled by the coal company as a replacement of the supply. The house was on a pad of dirt, sort of a cliff, surrounded on three sides by a coal mine. The 4th side, which was left as a cliff and ridge of land with a road on it, was perched above the strip mine. Because the strip mine had dewatered the well-- removing all the coal removed the formation that supplied the well, the coal company had drilled them a new, much deeper well, but the water in the well was AWFUL. Very high in salt and sodium bicarbonate, (baking soda). It was literally not fit to drink.
The coal company, acknowledging that the water was awful, had given the home owner an osmosis machine that purified 4 quarts of water, every day, for drinking water. But, of course, the water was so bad, the membrane of the machine didn't last beyond a couple of weeks, so the family was trying to use the undrinkable water as their source... It all ended up that the coal mine had to install a cistern and provide them with drinking water, to replace their well. Fortunately, more than 4 quarts of water per day.
I know that out west, the utilities do not want you to contain rain water that falls on your roof and/or driveway, etc., because they need every drop to recharge the aquifer and provide water for everyone. I have a hard time with that, too, but can understand that they are absolutely desperate for additional water. They have been mining the groundwater out there for years, and the time will come when they run out. Water levels in the aquifers are becoming dangerously low-- so it is of critical importance that every drop of rainwater goes to recharge the aquifer.
Fortunately, here, we have plenty of rainwater, even though we may not have the formations that can transmit the water to a well, OR to recharge a deeper aquifer. My advice: Move. If you live in a spot on this earth without water, find another spot. It's only going to get worse.
What bugs me more is that private companies, like Nestle, wants to supply water for homes.
Well out here in the desert the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians have most of the water rights rights and the Morongo Band makes extra money by leasing some of it's water rights to Nestles to bottle water for sale pretty much anywhere Nestles wants to sell it.
There is a difference between a private company and a public utility. Nestle can bottle water without having to meet the federal standards for drinking water, because it is regulated by the FDA, not the EPA. A public utility must follow the standards by the EPA, which are much more stringent, and require a lot of treatment to be pure enough to pipe to homes. Plus, they must add chlorine in order to maintain a (I think) 3 ppm level to all homes.
A public utility has to meet these stringent standards, AND has all the added expenses of maintaining treatment plants, the distribution system, the federal requirements for testing, etc. A public utility is monitored very closely, while a private company is not. Nestle can charge whatever they want for their water, while a public utility has to submit water rates to a watch-dog organization, the Utility Regulatory Commission, who caps the amount they can charge, based on their costs.
If Nestle can find a semi-pure source of supply and doesn't have to run the water through a treatment plant, just bottle it, they have an unfair advantage over a public utility. Which they do anyway, because they don't have maintain the chlorine dose, or meet federal purity standards.
Another thing we're all overlooking, is that water boundaries have absolutely nothing to do with arbitrary political boundaries. Here, at home, Louisville is in at least 4 different watersheds, but politically, it's one county. So, say this one county has a piece of a watershed, and the formations are wonderful-- the county can pump the aquifer and manage to dewater the watershed. So, one county can take all the water from that piece of a good watershed, leaving the rest, which is in another county, without an adequate supply.
Just the water rights and uses, which California somehow manages, would have the state legislature/etc. ding donging around for years. In fact, I could see this one issue, which would destroy a state-wide management plan, as having the capability of stopping anyone from leaving California.
Basically, here, you "own" the rights to the water beneath your property.
That's how it worked when I lived in rural Michigan. Of course in Michigan the water table was so high that most of the state was really sort of floating on fresh water. When I bought my first home about 20 miles inland from Lake Michigan my well was only 20ft deep. I had to have the point pulled because it clogged, so while it was up I had the pipes going into my pump replaced (they were 30 years old, like the house) and told the well man to drop the point down another ten feet just in case because I'd heard there had been an old gas station about two miles away from where I lived. The idea of actually "buying" water was foreign to me. Of course there were expenses like a water softener (and the salt) and a septic tank to worry about, but I knew people who could always help me out with those at costs, just like David the well guy did.
I live in Yuma Arizona, where the Colorado River comes to die.
The mighty Colorado, author of the Grand Canyon, no longer flows to the sea. It irrigates the farms of the Southwest... and the fountains of Las Vegas.
The topics are: - The advantages and disadvantages in breaking up large states into smaller ones. - The impact on the nation as a whole of moving to "flexible" state boundaries.
I think we could probably look to the issues that gerrymandering has caused and maybe apply it to your question. If we break up the larger States we are just dividing ourselves further into areas and people we mostly relate with.
I think maybe it's time should abolish the Country as a whole and divide it up based on party preference.
Gerrymandering. Surely a related topic. OTOH, if we imagine that the whole country was divided equitably, I don't see a resolution to the problem of populated counties and empty counties. Either Los Angeles gets representation that "weighs" 200 times Yreka, or "one man, one vote" is violated.
There's no way that Yreka and Los Angeles can be in the same polity - state or nation - without Yreka getting drowned.
So should we break up the USA? The question is not idle...
The answer is simple. Allowing the states to use the federal model of the house and senate as was done until 1964. Now we currently have two houses in each state and no senate. The United States federal representative model applied to the states would restore balance and end most efforts to divide into smaller states. I do think that California is way to big size wise and population wise to be one state. .
Im calling for the federal large state small state compromise at the state level. One body majority rule like the house and one where each county or region gets equal representation. Not minority rule. Do you feel oppressed by our federal system?
XX, you also have a state legislature, and they are the ones who should be representing the less populated areas.
The complaint about having 2 senators is not valid. You have more congressmen than any other state. That is part of the great compromise.
As a Long Islander, we went have gone through this several times with NYS. What we found was that there was actually zero benefit to the whole thing. Sometimes you should be careful for what you wish for.
During the Civil War, Kentucky did not secede, but was reconstructed anyway. We learned the hard way, what it's like to buck the system. It's a big step to take, and it may have long-lasting, bad consequences for the rest of the state, if you divide it up into different states. Kentucky really has never recovered from the Civil War.
It really isn't that much power. Republicans and democrats in Ca. vote very differently. You don't have 53 votes. You have the number of Democrats minus Republicans. Don't forget that 1/3rd of all democrats in the house are from 4 states. The California Republicans will vote against the California democrats on almost every issue and vice versa. We can build a national majority without any input from our largest urban areas.
We can build a national majority without any input from our largest urban areas.
Let's be precise here: the right can build a majority in Congress... not in the population. You are describing the method now being used by the Republican Party to rule the country, despite being the minority party.
A majority of the Senate requires 26 states. The cumulated population of the 26 smallest states is less than 18% of the total.
The House is more difficult (putting aside questions of gerrymandering). A majority could be made from 42 states, having a total of 52% of the nation's population. Conversely, a majority of both the population (51%) and Representatives could be made by only nine states.
After the 2010 census, Republican-controlled state legislatures redistricted to ensure future Republican majorities:
Since the GOP now controls most state legislatures, it won't matter what comes out of the 2020 census.
"Oppressed" isn't the right word, but I certainly feel that it is unjust that Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as Texas.
When one county is only 1/200th of another, giving them equal power in one of two houses is IMHO unfair. Yreka simply isn't in the same league as Los Angeles... and can never be.
I agree that there's a problem, but giving disproportionate power to a small minority is not a solution for the long term.
And then... what happens when there is dissent within Yreka? New subdivisions?
just a point of information Bob, Wyoming does not have the same representation as larger states such as California or Texas , we have the same number of senators as every other state is allowed Constitutionally because , each state is allowed 2 senators in the higher chamber of congress to look after the interests of the STATE not the individuals that job is the responsibility of members of the house of representatives . In the Senate all states ARE considered equal irregardless of population, and the reason they represent the states interests , is there are times what is good for the people is not in the best interest of the state as an entity , and vice versa what sometimes is good for the state is not good for the people, that's actually why each chamber represents different things .
So in the senate all states ARE equal with an equal vote, where the disparage lays is in the house , and their number is limited by both the constitution and law . Following the original rules , Wyoming should have another 2 maybe 3 reps in the house , Ca and Tx would have another 20 at least a piece , but the law states the house is limited to a certain number, and each state is constitutionally and by law to have a minimum of 1 member of the house no matter what their population is , and that is all some of the smaller populated states have 2 Senators that every state has , and a single member representing the people in the House.
Now ,does my states representation carry more or less weight than other states ? that can be debated , but in the upper chamber of congress we have the same as every state , in the lower chamber , the house , we are at a definite disadvantage having the minimum representation constitutionally and legally allowed
As for the topics of the article , I see both advantages and detriments , all I know is the current state borders will not become a new international border , I see more of a east and west California due to demographics and the voting results from the last election, California isnt as deep blue on the county level as some like to think . and those that do not wish to form their own nation wont be moving so in my view , the borders if it should happen will only be at the county level which is only if one looks in the high desity populated urban areas , my thought is ca if they separate will lose half to maybe 2/3rds of their tax base and most of their agriculture , and that's not even speaking of renegotiating where they would get water from if some counties decide to stay. Los Angeles would become a desert again.
I understand the system. I know why the Fathers created it. But I don't like it.
Let's imagine a Union of two states, one with fifty times the population of the other. If the two houses are of equal power, then a voter in the lower-population state has, mathematically, twenty-five times as much "weight" as a voter from the high-population state.
nobody says anyone has to like it , frankly I like it , and its the aspect of protection from the mob (higher Population decity) mentality that I really do like , if I have to choose , rule by the mob or rule by the minority , I will choose the minority every time , they are easier to keep track of and vote out of office.
and the only place that disproportion of vote value takes place is in the senate, in the house , which represents the people , a state with one vote is out voted by the larger state with say 53 votes
well yeah, how did that majority / mob rule work in France back at the turn of the 1700-1800s? wasn't exactly a testimate of it working in my view since it lead to an emporer being seated to bring about order.
the only way to get it changed is to get legislation passed to change the representation numbers , remember we have a representative republic , a form of democracy , what you propose is a true democracy or something just short of it , with no protections other than the mobs/majorities word , they wont abuse power, sorry , that doesn't cut it as far as I am concerned .
Because after the French Revolution mob rule went bat shit crazy and the guillotines were going day and night slaughtering anyone even thought to be opposed to the Revolution.
don't be obtuse , prior to the revolution in france , there was a monarchy , the revolution brought about its end and the devine right of nobility and , for a period , rule of the mob was the rule of the day , how many unjust acts were done by the "mob" under the color of new law until the rise of a dictator? my point is mobs/ majority , rules in its own best interests even at the cost to the minorities under their rule only at the majorities word they will be taken care of .
and that has a direct bearing on what we are discussing right now today , things have not changed one bit , how do YOU propose to make sure the minority is protected from the mentality of the majority ?
remember your true democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep sitting down and discussing whats for dinner , a representative republic is the same thing but the sheep is both well armed and has the law on their side.
wrong BOB , just as the mob mentality took over in the 1780s in France , more recently it did so again in 1917 in Russia remember their little revolution that put the mob in control of law? or should I say color of law , the boshies gave way to the soviets and themselves became the minority , ushering a dictator and a subsiquint line of them right up to present day .
your idea of majority /mob rule ( true democracy ) has always in the past , and always will lead to a dictatorship underwhich minorities will always be abused , YOU have not shown any proof otherwise that a true democracy , a utopian socialist construct could actually work for an extended period without abusing or taking advantage of some minority.
right now the system you are railing against has worked for over 200+ years, how many different forms of government has france had in those same 200 + years ? how many has the old soviet union area had? and how long has each lasted ?
no imagination needed , just historical facts, and a healthy distrust of people that say trust me be they in the minority or the majority . you though it would appear failed to learn history , thus you might be doomed to repeat it .
I will take my leave from this discussion , there is no point in it any longer .
I like the Federal compromise setup. It enabled the country we all love to exist. It was a mistake to say that that system as used by the individual states was unconstitutional. That change making all state legislatures basically two assemblies even if one is called a senate has caused all these rural vs. urban issues. At least before the senate and assembly would pass bills and then have to compromise to get things done and we had a voice. Now we have to have a majority in congress and hopefully a President to protect us some from our own state.
as opposed to more urban states having more of a right to dictate how those rural states conduct their business or do things? The soviets did that in the 1930s to the Georgian and Ukrainian kulaks , caused a famine when all the grain grown in the rural areas was confiscated by the government and sent to the urban areas.
that's what they call tyranny of the mob. an abrieviated form of slavery imposed simply due to a lack of population.
my individual rights , trumps the supposed collective rights anyone may think they have. because individually I get to choose how to handle my affairs and finances, if I choose to not let the collective benefit that's my choice as long as I remain within the law.
how so? everything is basically income based or value assessed , I get to choose what income I have that is taxable, it is possible to get away with paying zero income taxes and have a 7 figure savings cant really change the value much of other properties , but there is a way to limit things payed out. thus affecting the collective piggybank.
see my addum Bob , everything you have proposed has a time in history where the idea you propose didn't work to the detriment of the minority , and don't give us , the wrong people in the majority were in charge so it wasn't done right.
THRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP nope had a shot and blew it PJ
"It is entirely understandable that those who are in the minority prefer minority rule... " RIIIIIGHT Bob.......
you mean like the progressive left is currently? they are the minority in govenorships , state legislatures , federal legislature , soon to be the minority in the USSC AGAIN, and the federal executive office, according to how I think you see things , they should just sit back and watch things implode, but they for a minority group are pretty vocal. for a group with limited power , and vast amounts of followers., you sure all those followers can legally vote? seems not since , the group they follow has been in the minority for a few years now.
as opposed to more urban states having more of a right to dictate how those rural states conduct their business or do things? The soviets did that in the 1930s to the Georgian and Ukrainian kulaks , caused a famine when all the grain grown in the rural areas was confiscated by the government and sent to the urban areas.
I shouldn't have used the word "rural", because that's not the point. I should have kept it simple: highly populated or lightly populated. If you know of any highly populated rural areas....
that's what they call tyranny of the mob. an abrieviated form of slavery imposed simply due to a lack of population.
I do not understand how minority rule is less "slavery" than majority rule.
my individual rights , trumps the supposed collective rights anyone may think they have. because individually I get to choose how to handle my affairs and finances, if I choose to not let the collective benefit that's my choice as long as I remain within the law.
Sometimes individual rights collide with collective rights. The rules for deciding which has priority must be clear. Constitution and Supreme Court in the United States.
how so? everything is basically income based or value assessed , I get to choose what income I have that is taxable, it is possible to get away with paying zero income taxes and have a 7 figure savings cant really change the value much of other properties , but there is a way to limit things payed out. thus affecting the collective piggybank.
I can clear up what you don't understand quickly and condense my thoughts to the point .
The only way the sort of progressive anarchism you propose WOULD work , is for a minority to submit to the majority and give up their rights and TRUST the majority , even though history is rife with credible examples of abuse by the majority/mob with absolutely no guarentees that said abuses would not happen.
As it stands now people can individually make informed choices for themselves on how much they personally will contribute to society , and in this country it is mostly income based , taxes are paid on incomes or property , the government , gets most their income from taxes on income or profit , currently someone could have 7 figures as I stated , not have it in interest bearing accounts , not have it invested so thus there is no taxable income and there currently is no law that requires it to be so, who loses out? the collective on generated funds from taxation, why would someone take such actions?
could be any number of reasons , they decide the current political winds are unfavorable and they decide not to contribute to something disagreeable , could be they have saved invested and worked all their lives , got some lucky breaks and decide to just sit back and coast without having to pay into the system anymore. and it can be for any reason an individual can think of.
so in conclusion , without agreement .concession and compliance on all parties parts , there will be those that will find ways to .
and since there wouldn't be agreement , and there are too many ways to not concede, compliance would be impossible to enforce without force.
I never said the minority must give up their rights. On the contrary, I insisted that "rights" are the minority's primary defense against majority abuse.
I do not understand how taxes are implicated in this subject.
Bob , the minorities rights didn't help them in 1789 in france , nor in 1917 and the 1930s in Russia/ soviet era , nor in China in the 1950s , nor in Tibet , nor SE asia . nor anyplace else for any real length of time .
bob you don't have to say anything because your stances in past posts speak for themselves , which , correct me if I am wrong a you lean towards progressive socialism .
the US has dabbled in limited socialism when it has had true benefits for society even back before it was called socialism , post roads , post offices , public schools , public libraries police and fire services , all paid by and supported with taxes, and in some cases grants from the wealthier in society as well as other means . the question actually becomes , at what point do those that pay the most decide they are not getting their moneys worth , for little to no benefit, remember not everyone is into humanitarian socialism .
That's where taxes come into the discussion , because those would be affected by what the majority decides , the wealthy then are the minority. Didn't france a few years back raise taxes on the wealthy to fund the majorities desires? and that minority of wealthy had quite a few decide to leave the country and take citizenship in countries other than france ? I remember a couple even got Russian citizenship rather than keeping french. whats to stop that from happening somewhere else? nothing , and I say we are seeing it here already on a limited basis , evidenced by the number of people expatriating themselves and renouncing citizenship and its been going on for years , not just recently, it got to the point it now costs almost 3k to renounce ones US citizenship and then they are taxed on whatever funds they declare they are removing from the country.
now that we both have thouroughly derailed your own article , as far as calexit is concerned , the benefit to Ca would be they no longer would have to pay into the federal kitty , and they get to decide their own destiny absent federal constitutional restraints , the down sides are , their borders would shrink and be limited to only those areas that would be carried by the vote to do so ,those areas that vote nay would remain with the union and continue to be US Citizens and remain on the land they currently are on receiving government protection, If the last elections map of how the areas voted by party is any indication , as I said , the economy of the exiting state would be shrunk considerably as well as the land mass would also be restricted , as I said , Ca isn't as blue as some would like others to think. most of the federal properties are in those areas that conceivably would stay with the union, and even those deep blue areas might not want to separate.
we haven't even discussed , how Ca would start a military for self defense , except for guard equipment , most all military inventory would migrate to areas staying in the union, bases outside that area most likely will be stripped leaving next to nothing . military contracts would dry up and companies will move the company moves and the workers are either out of a job , or they move with the company., just the loss of the us military is a hell of an economic hit , check out what has happened anywhere the military closed a base and how it affects the economy locally. maybe they can negotiate with mexico for military protection.
though they no longer will be paying the federal entity in taxes , they also wont be getting the federal bennies , unless they are expecting to get foreign aid which most likely would be shot down in congress. and there is also the little matter of calis portion of the federal debt that will need to be settled , even if it is only 1/50th of the current debt , does the state have that on hand to be paid ? doubtful. and I am assuming its capped at 1/50th.
now that brings me to the last part , though how to join the union is covered by statute , there ois nothing in statute that covers the leaving of the union . it was discussed at the writing of the constitution , but never formalized , of course the early 1860s , showed us all how not to go about leaving the union , and so far, nothing is solid on if it could even be done peacefully, everyone is assuming you just reverse how one joins the union , but I doubt that's going to be how it works.
and this is all just scratching the surface , but if it comes to pass , its the democratic party that's going to be hit the hardest , right now Ca accounts for 55 EC votes that are solid dem votes since Ca is a winner take all state. that of course something progressives remaining don't like to think about .
the minorities rights didn't help them in 1789 in france
True. The most important lesson to be learned from 1789 and 1917 is the need for solid democratic institutions and traditions, and an adhesion to those traditions and institutions by all the players in the political game.
Hamas was elected in Gaza... and then never held another election. There are so-o-o many other examples, from Robert Mugabe to Adolf Hitler.
If the leaders of a democracy do not sustain those traditions and institutions, then the democracy may die. I think that America is at the limit of having this happen... or perhaps already past the limit.
Taxes are a separate debate, unless you want to instate a "poll tax". For example, we might allow the vote only to persons of at least a billion dollars in net worth. That would clarify the power structure in America... but I don't think it would change it very much...
We have a federalist system. So at the federal level we can pool our congressmen and women with rural ones from other states including those without big cities to defeat the power of urban representatives from this state. Republicans in Illinois, NY, and Ca. have members in other states to protect us from our own states democrats on national issues. When a democrat president denied our area federal disaster relief for wild fires our congressman was able to get appropriated more money for relief with less strings than if the President had declared it. Rural areas from all the states have to pool together to outvote the cities.
So at the federal level we can pool our congressmen and women with rural ones from other states including those without big cities to defeat the power of urban representatives from this state.
As stated in the article, in California, the ruling folks (LA and surroundings) carry the weight in state government and have all but legislated Northern California out of business. That isn't fair to those folks that live there. Extending that power over the rest of the states by population centers in a few states isn't right either.
Yes, break up the Country. The system currently in place gives too much power to the minority. Now I'm forced to have a president that engages in sexual assault, skipping out on his financial obligations and colluding with the Russians.
Who? Never heard of him? Really? I know our last real President (not the Russian propped up in to oval office now) was named Barack Hussein Obama. Remember him? He was the one who sent the Navy Seals and gave the order that killed the Somali pirates freeing that ship Captain. He also dug our nation out of being headed for another 1930's style or worse Depression and into a record number of month of job growth. Oh and he also made the very difficult decision to rely on 50-50 intel and sent in SEAL Team Six to kill Osama bin Laden. Now I am sure you haven't forgotten who wasn't able to get him for what he did on his watch, have you? I'd be happy to tell you the story if you were a tiny tot in 2001?
- The advantages and disadvantages in breaking up large states into smaller ones.
I believe that chipping away states into smaller entities exposes needs that are not as apparent as the advantages that they create. It kind of reminds me of the difficulties that the EU had during the financial crisis, where the more wealthy countries were demonstrating a bit of reticence when it came time to support their troubled counterparts. The US is more homogeneous an entity. Breaking a state like California apart might create additional bitterness and division in our country.
- The impact on the nation as a whole of moving to "flexible" state boundaries.
Again, we are all Americans, subject to the same set of laws. I understand that state laws vary from state to state, but there is no restriction on moving out of a state that you feel you are disadvantaged in.
I believe that chipping away states into smaller entities exposes needs that are not as apparent as the advantages that they create.
That is undoubtedly true. Yreka county cannot be heard when drowned out by Los Angeles, 200 times more populous. But once they have been heard... should they necessarily be followed? If the rule is "the greatest good for the greatest number"... we will often nod understandingly to Yreka... and then dowhat is needed for Los Angeles.
Breaking a state like California apart might create additional bitterness and division in our country.
I wonder. The divisions within our nation run deep. the will to compromise is almost absent. Is it perhaps time to break the system?
... there is no restriction on moving out of a state that you feel you are disadvantaged in.
True. But people are not really all that mobile. Most people make only one big move in their lives...
And for many white middle class people that one move is away from a state like Ca., NY, Ma. Md, to some other low tax fewer regulations right to work state.
Let's imagine the territory of the fifty states, after the next census, divided by a computer program into a thousand compactest-possible districts of equal population. No gerrymandering... on the contrary!
Then let's imagine a unicameral Congress -- one representative per district.
Let's keep it at 50 (a 1000 is too many new state flags and songs and animals and birds, etc., to keep coming up with) and just break the country up into 50 equal population states every ten years. That way they all get 2 Senators and an equal number of Representatives in the House.
Why two Houses? That just dilutes responsibility. If we do fifty districts, then that should mean fifty representatives to a single House. Let's leave no doubt about who is responsible for a given district!
I wouldn't argue about the number of representatives, except to say that these people would have to keep up with an awful lot of topics, so maybe more of them could split the load.
We have to have an upper and lower chamber otherwise the country would be strictly majority rule and that way lies chaos. That's why the turning of the Senate into the House that is happening now is so bad for our country.
Of course I celebrate IT. My first job was in IT. In fact when the Air Force assigned me to learn IT it was just 1973 and there just weren't very many IT specialist in America (or anywhere really), so I was very proud of it. In fact it gave me quite a good career that was associated with IT in one way or another for most of my working life, except when I went through a mid-life crisis and become an EMT on a Rescue Squad for two years. IT has been my friend for more then 43 years and it still comes in handy for fixing my wife's and mine computers here at home. Everyone should learn some real basic IT theory and not just make their computer work, but really understand HOW IT works and the 1's and 0's that make the IT magic happen! Don't you think?
simple answer is Bob , each house has different duties and different responsabilities as dictated by the Constitution, the Senate represents the states interests in government , and the house , the peoples interests , and as I have pointed out before , sometimes what is good for one is not good for the other, hense the bi-carmal congress to balance the needs of the people with the needs of the state and it is suppose to foster fruitful compromise , not that there is any lately.
people need to remember what each houses duties , and to whom they are responsible to , the 17th amendment didn't change a senators duties , just how they were placed in office , and people seem to forget that senators do not represent the people in our government , but because its the populous that elects them they think they represent the people , when they don't. once that is understood , its easy to see why there is 2 chambers of congress.
want it changed? it has to be done with a constitutional amendment , that would not pass ratification.
Questioning it is fine, but I'll be damned if I can think of a better way to do it. If I could change one thing I would make the so-called nuclear option in the Senate, not an option on anything. Anything at all. I think even budget reconciliation should require at least a 60% majority. The Senate needs to be the "great cooling saucer" it was intended to be. I wish it was possible to get through a Constitutional Amendment ordering that. We have slipped away from part of what it was intended to be and we will all suffer for it. And no finger pointing please! BOTH parties are guilty in this!
In selecting an appropriate visual symbol of the Senate in its founding period, one might consider an anchor, a fence, or a saucer. Writing to Thomas Jefferson , who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution's framers considered the Senate to be the great "anchor" of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.
Well the House is where ideas from the people through their Representatives are first debated and voted by popular vote. A simple majority. It is in the Senate, a much smaller body, where these ideas that were sorted through the House come to be more seriously considered. To see if they are, in the opinion of these older people (you have to be older to run for the Senate then for the House) who are serving longer terms and therefore are less driven by re-election and represent the entire state where they come from so they have the whole state as a constituency, more in the best interest of the whole of the nation or not. Then, if the Senate agrees, but that they have made changes they are sent to committee made up of members of both bodies to hammer out any differences. If the Senate passes what comes from the House with no changes then it's on to the President for signature. Having two houses in intended to make it much harder to change laws or implement new ones so they won't be changed or implemented on a whim or just by a simple majority of one House too quickly. The goal is to make it difficult.
You are describing the current system as it (supposedly) works. I'm talking about a more ideal system. Originally, the Senate was imagined as a second Cabinet, giving "advice annd consent" to the President. (There were only twenty-six Senators.)
The current system could hobble along as long as most Congresspersons made an effort to make it work. Now, with a significant portion purposefully sabotaging everything, the system's frailties are flagrant.
wELL THIS WHOLE THING WITH California COULD QUICKLY GET UGLY. iTS ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING A SANCTUARY STATE. That means loss of federal funds and other issues with the federal government. Now we have inland and northern counties and cities passing measures saying that they are not sanctuary governing units and that they will in every way cooperate with ICE and other federal laws regarding immigration. These places will defy California law in favor of obeying federal law. When GOP counties get federal funding and democrat ones don't and if the state tries to cut off funding to counties complying with federal law, it could get quite interesting. Many of the Jefferson counties have done or will soon do this. Will the state police send units to these counties to stand between local law enforcement and the feds when locals try to hand over illegals to the feds?
the feds have leaned on the states for decades to get their way and everyone has been alright with it until its a subject they disagree with , how did the mandatory min drinking age get put in place? lets go further back when speed limits were 55mph , how you think that got implemented nationally? it wasn't the states agreeing , it was under threat of loosing federal highway funds , and there are more examples to be sure.
Im generally against federal intervention in state matters. California is a unique case though where the majority ignores and rides roughshod over the minority trampling upon our necks with their jackboots. So, yes there are times where federal intervention to protect minority rights is justified. Particularly if the state tries to punish local areas for following federal law.
The cites, blue counties and agricultural areas will not cooperate with ICE and the rest of the state can do as it pleases. There are very few undocumented people in the other areas anyway and they are welcome to move areas where they will be protected. As for federal funding, the federal government won't care what county you are in if the state declares itself a sanctuary state.
Not true. If a county says it is not sanctuary and its LEO's are actively cooperating with the ICE and border patrol, etc. those counties will retain their federal funding.
Not true. If a county says it is not sanctuary and its LEO's are actively cooperating with the ICE and border patrol, etc. those counties will retain their federal funding.
wELL THIS WHOLE THING WITH California COULD QUICKLY GET UGLY. iTS ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING A SANCTUARY STATE. That means loss of federal funds and other issues with the federal government. Now we have inland and northern counties and cities passing measures saying that they are not sanctuary governing units and that they will in every way cooperate with ICE and other federal laws regarding immigration. These places will defy California law in favor of obeying federal law. When GOP counties get federal funding and democrat ones don't and if the state tries to cut off funding to counties complying with federal law, it could get quite interesting. Many of the Jefferson counties have done or will soon do this. Will the state police send units to these counties to stand between local law enforcement and the feds when locals try to hand over illegals to the feds?
Op-Ed by Steven Greenhut - The Opinion Pages / NYT
-------------------------------------
Mark Ralston
Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
SACRAMENTO — Two leaders of the successful referendum to remove Britain from the European Union were recently in California, where they said favorable things about the newest version of a plan to split the state in pieces. As Arron Banks told a British newspaper , “It’s the world’s sixth largest economy, and it’s very badly run.” He isn’t the only person to believe that a breakup may be the best way to solve California’s intractable problems.
Some news reports about the Yes California independence campaign used the term “Calexit,” which makes for good headlines because it sounds like “Brexit,” but it’s confusing. Some left-leaning activists indeed are pushing a far-fetched “Calexit” idea to create a new California nation , something that has gained publicity after Donald Trump’s victory shocked Democratic-dominant California. This Yes California campaign has a ballpark-zero chance of gaining traction. It’s mostly about venting.
While creating a new nation would tear the United States asunder, redrawing state boundaries is nowhere near as unthinkable — or as dangerous — as some suggest.
“We should explore creating more states so we have a democracy that’s closer to the people,” said Scott Baugh, a former Republican assemblyman who met with Mr. Banks and Nigel Farage when they were in Orange County to receive an award. California has nearly 40 million people and is growing. At what point is the population too large for a single state? he wondered in a recent interview. That’s a question Californians have been asking since the early days of the state’s existence.
When a motley crew of American settlers, native-born “Californios” and European immigrants assembled in Monterey in 1849 for a constitutional conventio n, there was wide disagreement about where to put the eastern boundary for the proposed state of California. Some wanted an enormous state that would have encompassed a lot of modern-day Utah.
Since California achieved statehood in 1850, residents have floated dozens of plans to break it up. A proposed 2016 measure to carve it into six states, which did not make it onto the ballot, was initiated by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Tim Draper , who also is behind the effort that Mr. Banks and Mr. Farage recommended. News reports suggest his latest plan is to largely split the state east to west, but Mr. Draper told me his idea has no specific boundaries yet.
“We are doing deep research on everything from infrastructure to higher education to safety to water to the electric grid to politics to income levels to health care,” Mr. Draper said.
I’ve flown the State of Jefferson flag at my little ranch, a reminder of a continuing partition movement dating to World War II. Residents of California’s northern counties and Oregon’s southern counties complain that their tiny populations’ concerns get short shrift here in Sacramento and in Salem, Ore. It’s now mainly a California movement to create one separate state in the far north. Some Jefferson backers say it’s basically a cry for help from a region suffering joblessness and an eroding tax base.
As an example, a group of elected sheriffs met in Yreka, Calif., a few years ago, where they vowed to defy rules limiting public access within publicly owned lands. It was an astounding act of frustration at federal and state land-use policies that didn’t consider the concerns of local residents. But their meeting never gained attention in either state capital. These rural areas in the “north state” have watched their timber, fishing and mining industries dry up, and many officials in that region blame environmental policies that are drafted with dense urban areas in mind.
Yreka is the county seat of Siskiyou, which is physically larger than Los Angeles County , but its population of 44,000 is dwarfed by the latter’s 10 million residents. How do residents of a small-population county get their voices heard in a state where one of 58 counties is more populous than 41 other states? For additional perspective, San Bernardino County is larger geographically than New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island combined.
And it’s not just a problem in California’s desolate regions. Even Democratic officials in the blue-collar San Joaquin Valley , a four-million-population region where oil-drilling and agriculture are major industries, are often at odds with their party’s priorities. Hard-pressed industrial cities in California such as Fresno and Bakersfield are world’s away from Santa Barbara and Napa Valley. Residents of Orange, San Diego and Riverside counties are often frustrated by the outsize influence of nearby Los Angeles.
Like many Californians, I haven’t embraced any particular proposal, but there’s no reason current boundaries can’t be adjusted to meet the needs of a changing population. Residents of Chico could still visit San Francisco on the weekend, just as I can now travel to Reno, Nev., to play the slots. But a partitioned California — or Texas or Florida, for that matter — could improve millions of people’s chances at self-government. It would also make sense on a federal level given that nearly 40 million Californians are represented by two senators — the same number that represent Wyoming, which has fewer than 600,000 residents.
Some readers may scoff at this seemingly pie-in-the-sky notion, but state boundaries have long been fluid and even illogical . People also thought Brexit was an impossible idea. But state boundaries aren’t sacrosanct. Maybe it’s time to reduce political division by adjusting the political lines.
-----------------------------------
RED RULES apply:
Be polite
No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
Be smart and stay on-topic
Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning.
One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic and will be deleted.
-----------------------------------
The topics are:
- The advantages and disadvantages in breaking up large states into smaller ones.
- The impact on the nation as a whole of moving to "flexible" state boundaries.
RED RULES apply:
- Be polite. No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!
- Be smart and stay on topic. Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic, and will be deleted.
Special seed, for XX!
Never happen.
We agree. Not a chance.
I'm heading to CA tomorrow! Maybe I'll slip over to Jefferson and see what it has to offer......
Lots of trees and some good places to grow pot. Also a lot of water. Some of the reasons the State legislature will never vote to let it go and they need that (I believe 3/4ths votes) to happen plus approval from the U.S. Congress. It's not going to happen.
I don't believe California will ever let the northern part of the state leave, if only because they have water-- and the rest of the state is so dry.
Good enough reason for me.
the rest of the state is so dry
You could always take a little bit more from the Colorado River.
...
...
oh, wait
Actually we here get our water from five deep wells owned by the Myoma Water Company which basically just serves Bermuda Dunes. The rest of the desert communities make deals for water sharing and leased land (a large part of Palm Springs is leased Indian land and the lease is going to be up in 2020) with The Morongo Band of Mission Indians and The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. We're sort of on the sidelines watching.
Ifind the notion of "water wells belonging to" very distressing. I'm glad no one has figured out how to take possession possession of the air we breathe.
Well, water is a finite resource, and a utility gets a free pass, sort of, as they provide the water for everyone else. Maybe we can all be glad that we don't have to rely on wells on our own property.... What bugs me more is that private companies, like Nestle, wants to supply water for homes. The cost will be astronomical!
I don't mind a collectivity - city or county or whatever - managing water distribution. Butthe idea of a private company owning groundwater is... disgusting.
I don't understand riparian rights, as they apply out west, which is different than it is applied to here in the Midwest.
Basically, here, you "own" the rights to the water beneath your property. If a utility or business dewaters your well, they are bound by law to replace it. It seems to work fairly well here, even though there are times when it has to be enforced.
I once worked for a coal company to investigate a private well that had been drilled by the coal company as a replacement of the supply. The house was on a pad of dirt, sort of a cliff, surrounded on three sides by a coal mine. The 4th side, which was left as a cliff and ridge of land with a road on it, was perched above the strip mine. Because the strip mine had dewatered the well-- removing all the coal removed the formation that supplied the well, the coal company had drilled them a new, much deeper well, but the water in the well was AWFUL. Very high in salt and sodium bicarbonate, (baking soda). It was literally not fit to drink.
The coal company, acknowledging that the water was awful, had given the home owner an osmosis machine that purified 4 quarts of water, every day, for drinking water. But, of course, the water was so bad, the membrane of the machine didn't last beyond a couple of weeks, so the family was trying to use the undrinkable water as their source... It all ended up that the coal mine had to install a cistern and provide them with drinking water, to replace their well. Fortunately, more than 4 quarts of water per day.
I know that out west, the utilities do not want you to contain rain water that falls on your roof and/or driveway, etc., because they need every drop to recharge the aquifer and provide water for everyone. I have a hard time with that, too, but can understand that they are absolutely desperate for additional water. They have been mining the groundwater out there for years, and the time will come when they run out. Water levels in the aquifers are becoming dangerously low-- so it is of critical importance that every drop of rainwater goes to recharge the aquifer.
Fortunately, here, we have plenty of rainwater, even though we may not have the formations that can transmit the water to a well, OR to recharge a deeper aquifer. My advice: Move. If you live in a spot on this earth without water, find another spot. It's only going to get worse.
What bugs me more is that private companies, like Nestle, wants to supply water for homes.
Well out here in the desert the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians have most of the water rights rights and the Morongo Band makes extra money by leasing some of it's water rights to Nestles to bottle water for sale pretty much anywhere Nestles wants to sell it.
There is a difference between a private company and a public utility. Nestle can bottle water without having to meet the federal standards for drinking water, because it is regulated by the FDA, not the EPA. A public utility must follow the standards by the EPA, which are much more stringent, and require a lot of treatment to be pure enough to pipe to homes. Plus, they must add chlorine in order to maintain a (I think) 3 ppm level to all homes.
A public utility has to meet these stringent standards, AND has all the added expenses of maintaining treatment plants, the distribution system, the federal requirements for testing, etc. A public utility is monitored very closely, while a private company is not. Nestle can charge whatever they want for their water, while a public utility has to submit water rates to a watch-dog organization, the Utility Regulatory Commission, who caps the amount they can charge, based on their costs.
If Nestle can find a semi-pure source of supply and doesn't have to run the water through a treatment plant, just bottle it, they have an unfair advantage over a public utility. Which they do anyway, because they don't have maintain the chlorine dose, or meet federal purity standards.
Another thing we're all overlooking, is that water boundaries have absolutely nothing to do with arbitrary political boundaries. Here, at home, Louisville is in at least 4 different watersheds, but politically, it's one county. So, say this one county has a piece of a watershed, and the formations are wonderful-- the county can pump the aquifer and manage to dewater the watershed. So, one county can take all the water from that piece of a good watershed, leaving the rest, which is in another county, without an adequate supply.
Just the water rights and uses, which California somehow manages, would have the state legislature/etc. ding donging around for years. In fact, I could see this one issue, which would destroy a state-wide management plan, as having the capability of stopping anyone from leaving California.
And Nestlé is selling our children's water...
Basically, here, you "own" the rights to the water beneath your property.
That's how it worked when I lived in rural Michigan. Of course in Michigan the water table was so high that most of the state was really sort of floating on fresh water. When I bought my first home about 20 miles inland from Lake Michigan my well was only 20ft deep. I had to have the point pulled because it clogged, so while it was up I had the pipes going into my pump replaced (they were 30 years old, like the house) and told the well man to drop the point down another ten feet just in case because I'd heard there had been an old gas station about two miles away from where I lived. The idea of actually "buying" water was foreign to me. Of course there were expenses like a water softener (and the salt) and a septic tank to worry about, but I knew people who could always help me out with those at costs, just like David the well guy did.
I live in Yuma Arizona, where the Colorado River comes to die.
The mighty Colorado, author of the Grand Canyon, no longer flows to the sea. It irrigates the farms of the Southwest... and the fountains of Las Vegas.
Hey people!
The topics are:
- The advantages and disadvantages in breaking up large states into smaller ones.
- The impact on the nation as a whole of moving to "flexible" state boundaries.
I see no advantage to the state of breaking California up into smaller states and I think it would have an overall negative impact on the U.S.
Sorry Bob
I think we could probably look to the issues that gerrymandering has caused and maybe apply it to your question. If we break up the larger States we are just dividing ourselves further into areas and people we mostly relate with.
I think maybe it's time should abolish the Country as a whole and divide it up based on party preference.
Jeez, PJ...
That's a lot of ideas!
Gerrymandering. Surely a related topic. OTOH, if we imagine that the whole country was divided equitably, I don't see a resolution to the problem of populated counties and empty counties. Either Los Angeles gets representation that "weighs" 200 times Yreka, or "one man, one vote" is violated.
There's no way that Yreka and Los Angeles can be in the same polity - state or nation - without Yreka getting drowned.
So should we break up the USA? The question is not idle...
The answer is simple. Allowing the states to use the federal model of the house and senate as was done until 1964. Now we currently have two houses in each state and no senate. The United States federal representative model applied to the states would restore balance and end most efforts to divide into smaller states. I do think that California is way to big size wise and population wise to be one state. .
I think California is perfect just the way it is.
XX,
You are basically calling for minority rule by rural populations.
Im calling for the federal large state small state compromise at the state level. One body majority rule like the house and one where each county or region gets equal representation. Not minority rule. Do you feel oppressed by our federal system?
XX, you also have a state legislature, and they are the ones who should be representing the less populated areas.
The complaint about having 2 senators is not valid. You have more congressmen than any other state. That is part of the great compromise.
As a Long Islander, we went have gone through this several times with NYS. What we found was that there was actually zero benefit to the whole thing. Sometimes you should be careful for what you wish for.
During the Civil War, Kentucky did not secede, but was reconstructed anyway. We learned the hard way, what it's like to buck the system. It's a big step to take, and it may have long-lasting, bad consequences for the rest of the state, if you divide it up into different states. Kentucky really has never recovered from the Civil War.
You have more congressmen than any other state. That is part of the great compromise.
Which is another great reason to not split California up in any manner. Why cut into our power in the House?
It really isn't that much power. Republicans and democrats in Ca. vote very differently. You don't have 53 votes. You have the number of Democrats minus Republicans. Don't forget that 1/3rd of all democrats in the house are from 4 states. The California Republicans will vote against the California democrats on almost every issue and vice versa. We can build a national majority without any input from our largest urban areas.
We can build a national majority without any input from our largest urban areas.
Let's be precise here: the right can build a majority in Congress... not in the population. You are describing the method now being used by the Republican Party to rule the country, despite being the minority party.
A majority of the Senate requires 26 states. The cumulated population of the 26 smallest states is less than 18% of the total.
The House is more difficult (putting aside questions of gerrymandering). A majority could be made from 42 states, having a total of 52% of the nation's population. Conversely, a majority of both the population (51%) and Representatives could be made by only nine states.
After the 2010 census, Republican-controlled state legislatures redistricted to ensure future Republican majorities:
Since the GOP now controls most state legislatures, it won't matter what comes out of the 2020 census.
Do you feel oppressed by our federal system?
"Oppressed" isn't the right word, but I certainly feel that it is unjust that Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as Texas.
When one county is only 1/200th of another, giving them equal power in one of two houses is IMHO unfair. Yreka simply isn't in the same league as Los Angeles... and can never be.
I agree that there's a problem, but giving disproportionate power to a small minority is not a solution for the long term.
And then... what happens when there is dissent within Yreka? New subdivisions?
just a point of information Bob, Wyoming does not have the same representation as larger states such as California or Texas , we have the same number of senators as every other state is allowed Constitutionally because , each state is allowed 2 senators in the higher chamber of congress to look after the interests of the STATE not the individuals that job is the responsibility of members of the house of representatives . In the Senate all states ARE considered equal irregardless of population, and the reason they represent the states interests , is there are times what is good for the people is not in the best interest of the state as an entity , and vice versa what sometimes is good for the state is not good for the people, that's actually why each chamber represents different things .
So in the senate all states ARE equal with an equal vote, where the disparage lays is in the house , and their number is limited by both the constitution and law . Following the original rules , Wyoming should have another 2 maybe 3 reps in the house , Ca and Tx would have another 20 at least a piece , but the law states the house is limited to a certain number, and each state is constitutionally and by law to have a minimum of 1 member of the house no matter what their population is , and that is all some of the smaller populated states have 2 Senators that every state has , and a single member representing the people in the House.
Now ,does my states representation carry more or less weight than other states ? that can be debated , but in the upper chamber of congress we have the same as every state , in the lower chamber , the house , we are at a definite disadvantage having the minimum representation constitutionally and legally allowed
As for the topics of the article , I see both advantages and detriments , all I know is the current state borders will not become a new international border , I see more of a east and west California due to demographics and the voting results from the last election, California isnt as deep blue on the county level as some like to think . and those that do not wish to form their own nation wont be moving so in my view , the borders if it should happen will only be at the county level which is only if one looks in the high desity populated urban areas , my thought is ca if they separate will lose half to maybe 2/3rds of their tax base and most of their agriculture , and that's not even speaking of renegotiating where they would get water from if some counties decide to stay. Los Angeles would become a desert again.
I understand the system. I know why the Fathers created it. But I don't like it.
Let's imagine a Union of two states, one with fifty times the population of the other. If the two houses are of equal power, then a voter in the lower-population state has, mathematically, twenty-five times as much "weight" as a voter from the high-population state.
That's unfair.
nobody says anyone has to like it , frankly I like it , and its the aspect of protection from the mob (higher Population decity) mentality that I really do like , if I have to choose , rule by the mob or rule by the minority , I will choose the minority every time , they are easier to keep track of and vote out of office.
and the only place that disproportion of vote value takes place is in the senate, in the house , which represents the people , a state with one vote is out voted by the larger state with say 53 votes
if I have to choose , rule by the mob or rule by the minority , I will choose the minority every time
When you are in the minority, that's kinda logical...
well yeah, how did that majority / mob rule work in France back at the turn of the 1700-1800s? wasn't exactly a testimate of it working in my view since it lead to an emporer being seated to bring about order.
the only way to get it changed is to get legislation passed to change the representation numbers , remember we have a representative republic , a form of democracy , what you propose is a true democracy or something just short of it , with no protections other than the mobs/majorities word , they wont abuse power, sorry , that doesn't cut it as far as I am concerned .
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The topic was majority/minority rule in the US in the year 2020...
I do not see any relevance in 1789 France.
Because after the French Revolution mob rule went bat shit crazy and the guillotines were going day and night slaughtering anyone even thought to be opposed to the Revolution.
That is true. My question was, "How is that relevant to the US in 2020?"
don't be obtuse , prior to the revolution in france , there was a monarchy , the revolution brought about its end and the devine right of nobility and , for a period , rule of the mob was the rule of the day , how many unjust acts were done by the "mob" under the color of new law until the rise of a dictator? my point is mobs/ majority , rules in its own best interests even at the cost to the minorities under their rule only at the majorities word they will be taken care of .
and that has a direct bearing on what we are discussing right now today , things have not changed one bit , how do YOU propose to make sure the minority is protected from the mentality of the majority ?
remember your true democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep sitting down and discussing whats for dinner , a representative republic is the same thing but the sheep is both well armed and has the law on their side.
prior to the revolution in france , there was a monarchy , the revolution brought about its end and the devine right of nobility
In short: the situation in France in 1789 has NOTHING in common with the situation in the US today.
History doesn't matter?
wrong BOB , just as the mob mentality took over in the 1780s in France , more recently it did so again in 1917 in Russia remember their little revolution that put the mob in control of law? or should I say color of law , the boshies gave way to the soviets and themselves became the minority , ushering a dictator and a subsiquint line of them right up to present day .
your idea of majority /mob rule ( true democracy ) has always in the past , and always will lead to a dictatorship underwhich minorities will always be abused , YOU have not shown any proof otherwise that a true democracy , a utopian socialist construct could actually work for an extended period without abusing or taking advantage of some minority.
right now the system you are railing against has worked for over 200+ years, how many different forms of government has france had in those same 200 + years ? how many has the old soviet union area had? and how long has each lasted ?
You have a vivid imagination.
no imagination needed , just historical facts, and a healthy distrust of people that say trust me be they in the minority or the majority . you though it would appear failed to learn history , thus you might be doomed to repeat it .
I will take my leave from this discussion , there is no point in it any longer .
I like the Federal compromise setup. It enabled the country we all love to exist. It was a mistake to say that that system as used by the individual states was unconstitutional. That change making all state legislatures basically two assemblies even if one is called a senate has caused all these rural vs. urban issues. At least before the senate and assembly would pass bills and then have to compromise to get things done and we had a voice. Now we have to have a majority in congress and hopefully a President to protect us some from our own state.
It's a system that giives inordinate power to rural states.
as opposed to more urban states having more of a right to dictate how those rural states conduct their business or do things? The soviets did that in the 1930s to the Georgian and Ukrainian kulaks , caused a famine when all the grain grown in the rural areas was confiscated by the government and sent to the urban areas.
that's what they call tyranny of the mob. an abrieviated form of slavery imposed simply due to a lack of population.
my individual rights , trumps the supposed collective rights anyone may think they have. because individually I get to choose how to handle my affairs and finances, if I choose to not let the collective benefit that's my choice as long as I remain within the law.
how so? everything is basically income based or value assessed , I get to choose what income I have that is taxable, it is possible to get away with paying zero income taxes and have a 7 figure savings cant really change the value much of other properties , but there is a way to limit things payed out. thus affecting the collective piggybank.
as opposed to more urban states having more of a right to dictate how those rural states conduct their business or do things?
No. As opposed to having the majority making tbe decisions rather than the minority.
It is entirely understandable that those who are in the minority prefer minority rule...
see my addum Bob , everything you have proposed has a time in history where the idea you propose didn't work to the detriment of the minority , and don't give us , the wrong people in the majority were in charge so it wasn't done right.
I think the wrong people were in charge. We should let them try again.
THRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP nope had a shot and blew it PJ
"It is entirely understandable that those who are in the minority prefer minority rule... " RIIIIIGHT Bob.......
you mean like the progressive left is currently? they are the minority in govenorships , state legislatures , federal legislature , soon to be the minority in the USSC AGAIN, and the federal executive office, according to how I think you see things , they should just sit back and watch things implode, but they for a minority group are pretty vocal. for a group with limited power , and vast amounts of followers., you sure all those followers can legally vote? seems not since , the group they follow has been in the minority for a few years now.
as opposed to more urban states having more of a right to dictate how those rural states conduct their business or do things? The soviets did that in the 1930s to the Georgian and Ukrainian kulaks , caused a famine when all the grain grown in the rural areas was confiscated by the government and sent to the urban areas.
I shouldn't have used the word "rural", because that's not the point. I should have kept it simple: highly populated or lightly populated. If you know of any highly populated rural areas....
that's what they call tyranny of the mob. an abrieviated form of slavery imposed simply due to a lack of population.
I do not understand how minority rule is less "slavery" than majority rule.
my individual rights , trumps the supposed collective rights anyone may think they have. because individually I get to choose how to handle my affairs and finances, if I choose to not let the collective benefit that's my choice as long as I remain within the law.
Sometimes individual rights collide with collective rights. The rules for deciding which has priority must be clear. Constitution and Supreme Court in the United States.
how so? everything is basically income based or value assessed , I get to choose what income I have that is taxable, it is possible to get away with paying zero income taxes and have a 7 figure savings cant really change the value much of other properties , but there is a way to limit things payed out. thus affecting the collective piggybank.
I don't understand what you mean, here.
I can clear up what you don't understand quickly and condense my thoughts to the point .
The only way the sort of progressive anarchism you propose WOULD work , is for a minority to submit to the majority and give up their rights and TRUST the majority , even though history is rife with credible examples of abuse by the majority/mob with absolutely no guarentees that said abuses would not happen.
As it stands now people can individually make informed choices for themselves on how much they personally will contribute to society , and in this country it is mostly income based , taxes are paid on incomes or property , the government , gets most their income from taxes on income or profit , currently someone could have 7 figures as I stated , not have it in interest bearing accounts , not have it invested so thus there is no taxable income and there currently is no law that requires it to be so, who loses out? the collective on generated funds from taxation, why would someone take such actions?
could be any number of reasons , they decide the current political winds are unfavorable and they decide not to contribute to something disagreeable , could be they have saved invested and worked all their lives , got some lucky breaks and decide to just sit back and coast without having to pay into the system anymore. and it can be for any reason an individual can think of.
so in conclusion , without agreement .concession and compliance on all parties parts , there will be those that will find ways to .
and since there wouldn't be agreement , and there are too many ways to not concede, compliance would be impossible to enforce without force.
I never said the minority must give up their rights. On the contrary, I insisted that "rights" are the minority's primary defense against majority abuse.
I do not understand how taxes are implicated in this subject.
Bob , the minorities rights didn't help them in 1789 in france , nor in 1917 and the 1930s in Russia/ soviet era , nor in China in the 1950s , nor in Tibet , nor SE asia . nor anyplace else for any real length of time .
bob you don't have to say anything because your stances in past posts speak for themselves , which , correct me if I am wrong a you lean towards progressive socialism .
the US has dabbled in limited socialism when it has had true benefits for society even back before it was called socialism , post roads , post offices , public schools , public libraries police and fire services , all paid by and supported with taxes, and in some cases grants from the wealthier in society as well as other means . the question actually becomes , at what point do those that pay the most decide they are not getting their moneys worth , for little to no benefit, remember not everyone is into humanitarian socialism .
That's where taxes come into the discussion , because those would be affected by what the majority decides , the wealthy then are the minority. Didn't france a few years back raise taxes on the wealthy to fund the majorities desires? and that minority of wealthy had quite a few decide to leave the country and take citizenship in countries other than france ? I remember a couple even got Russian citizenship rather than keeping french. whats to stop that from happening somewhere else? nothing , and I say we are seeing it here already on a limited basis , evidenced by the number of people expatriating themselves and renouncing citizenship and its been going on for years , not just recently, it got to the point it now costs almost 3k to renounce ones US citizenship and then they are taxed on whatever funds they declare they are removing from the country.
now that we both have thouroughly derailed your own article , as far as calexit is concerned , the benefit to Ca would be they no longer would have to pay into the federal kitty , and they get to decide their own destiny absent federal constitutional restraints , the down sides are , their borders would shrink and be limited to only those areas that would be carried by the vote to do so ,those areas that vote nay would remain with the union and continue to be US Citizens and remain on the land they currently are on receiving government protection, If the last elections map of how the areas voted by party is any indication , as I said , the economy of the exiting state would be shrunk considerably as well as the land mass would also be restricted , as I said , Ca isn't as blue as some would like others to think. most of the federal properties are in those areas that conceivably would stay with the union, and even those deep blue areas might not want to separate.
we haven't even discussed , how Ca would start a military for self defense , except for guard equipment , most all military inventory would migrate to areas staying in the union, bases outside that area most likely will be stripped leaving next to nothing . military contracts would dry up and companies will move the company moves and the workers are either out of a job , or they move with the company., just the loss of the us military is a hell of an economic hit , check out what has happened anywhere the military closed a base and how it affects the economy locally. maybe they can negotiate with mexico for military protection.
though they no longer will be paying the federal entity in taxes , they also wont be getting the federal bennies , unless they are expecting to get foreign aid which most likely would be shot down in congress. and there is also the little matter of calis portion of the federal debt that will need to be settled , even if it is only 1/50th of the current debt , does the state have that on hand to be paid ? doubtful. and I am assuming its capped at 1/50th.
now that brings me to the last part , though how to join the union is covered by statute , there ois nothing in statute that covers the leaving of the union . it was discussed at the writing of the constitution , but never formalized , of course the early 1860s , showed us all how not to go about leaving the union , and so far, nothing is solid on if it could even be done peacefully, everyone is assuming you just reverse how one joins the union , but I doubt that's going to be how it works.
and this is all just scratching the surface , but if it comes to pass , its the democratic party that's going to be hit the hardest , right now Ca accounts for 55 EC votes that are solid dem votes since Ca is a winner take all state. that of course something progressives remaining don't like to think about .
Mark,
the minorities rights didn't help them in 1789 in france
True. The most important lesson to be learned from 1789 and 1917 is the need for solid democratic institutions and traditions, and an adhesion to those traditions and institutions by all the players in the political game.
Hamas was elected in Gaza... and then never held another election. There are so-o-o many other examples, from Robert Mugabe to Adolf Hitler.
If the leaders of a democracy do not sustain those traditions and institutions, then the democracy may die. I think that America is at the limit of having this happen... or perhaps already past the limit.
Taxes are a separate debate, unless you want to instate a "poll tax". For example, we might allow the vote only to persons of at least a billion dollars in net worth. That would clarify the power structure in America... but I don't think it would change it very much...
We have a federalist system. So at the federal level we can pool our congressmen and women with rural ones from other states including those without big cities to defeat the power of urban representatives from this state. Republicans in Illinois, NY, and Ca. have members in other states to protect us from our own states democrats on national issues. When a democrat president denied our area federal disaster relief for wild fires our congressman was able to get appropriated more money for relief with less strings than if the President had declared it. Rural areas from all the states have to pool together to outvote the cities.
So at the federal level we can pool our congressmen and women with rural ones from other states including those without big cities to defeat the power of urban representatives from this state.
Yes. It's called "minority rule".
As stated in the article, in California, the ruling folks (LA and surroundings) carry the weight in state government and have all but legislated Northern California out of business. That isn't fair to those folks that live there. Extending that power over the rest of the states by population centers in a few states isn't right either.
What is your solution? Minority rule by the rural counties? Take away the vote from urban residents?
Yes, break up the Country. The system currently in place gives too much power to the minority. Now I'm forced to have a president that engages in sexual assault, skipping out on his financial obligations and colluding with the Russians.
I felt much the same way about Bill.
Not to mention Barack Hussein.
Oh X! (pj shaking her head)
Not to mention Barack Hussein.
Who? Never heard of him? Really? I know our last real President (not the Russian propped up in to oval office now) was named Barack Hussein Obama. Remember him? He was the one who sent the Navy Seals and gave the order that killed the Somali pirates freeing that ship Captain. He also dug our nation out of being headed for another 1930's style or worse Depression and into a record number of month of job growth. Oh and he also made the very difficult decision to rely on 50-50 intel and sent in SEAL Team Six to kill Osama bin Laden. Now I am sure you haven't forgotten who wasn't able to get him for what he did on his watch, have you? I'd be happy to tell you the story if you were a tiny tot in 2001?
I wasn't over joyed about Bill either. What does that have to do with the criminal, crook, liar, misogynist, racists currently in office?
- The advantages and disadvantages in breaking up large states into smaller ones.
I believe that chipping away states into smaller entities exposes needs that are not as apparent as the advantages that they create. It kind of reminds me of the difficulties that the EU had during the financial crisis, where the more wealthy countries were demonstrating a bit of reticence when it came time to support their troubled counterparts. The US is more homogeneous an entity. Breaking a state like California apart might create additional bitterness and division in our country.
- The impact on the nation as a whole of moving to "flexible" state boundaries.
Again, we are all Americans, subject to the same set of laws. I understand that state laws vary from state to state, but there is no restriction on moving out of a state that you feel you are disadvantaged in.
I believe that chipping away states into smaller entities exposes needs that are not as apparent as the advantages that they create.
That is undoubtedly true. Yreka county cannot be heard when drowned out by Los Angeles, 200 times more populous. But once they have been heard... should they necessarily be followed? If the rule is "the greatest good for the greatest number"... we will often nod understandingly to Yreka... and then do what is needed for Los Angeles.
Breaking a state like California apart might create additional bitterness and division in our country.
I wonder. The divisions within our nation run deep. the will to compromise is almost absent. Is it perhaps time to break the system?
... there is no restriction on moving out of a state that you feel you are disadvantaged in.
True. But people are not really all that mobile. Most people make only one big move in their lives...
And for many white middle class people that one move is away from a state like Ca., NY, Ma. Md, to some other low tax fewer regulations right to work state.
Let's imagine the territory of the fifty states, after the next census, divided by a computer program into a thousand compactest-possible districts of equal population. No gerrymandering... on the contrary!
Then let's imagine a unicameral Congress -- one representative per district.
Let's keep it at 50 (a 1000 is too many new state flags and songs and animals and birds, etc., to keep coming up with) and just break the country up into 50 equal population states every ten years. That way they all get 2 Senators and an equal number of Representatives in the House.
Why two Houses? That just dilutes responsibility. If we do fifty districts, then that should mean fifty representatives to a single House. Let's leave no doubt about who is responsible for a given district!
I wouldn't argue about the number of representatives, except to say that these people would have to keep up with an awful lot of topics, so maybe more of them could split the load.
We have to have an upper and lower chamber otherwise the country would be strictly majority rule and that way lies chaos. That's why the turning of the Senate into the House that is happening now is so bad for our country.
that way lies chaos
Why?
IMNAAHO, the safeguard against mob stupidity is in maximizing individual and collective rights, not in diminishing democracy.
And Randy it was bad for the states when that exact thing happened at the state level and yet here you celebrate IT.
Of course I celebrate IT. My first job was in IT. In fact when the Air Force assigned me to learn IT it was just 1973 and there just weren't very many IT specialist in America (or anywhere really), so I was very proud of it. In fact it gave me quite a good career that was associated with IT in one way or another for most of my working life, except when I went through a mid-life crisis and become an EMT on a Rescue Squad for two years. IT has been my friend for more then 43 years and it still comes in handy for fixing my wife's and mine computers here at home. Everyone should learn some real basic IT theory and not just make their computer work, but really understand HOW IT works and the 1's and 0's that make the IT magic happen! Don't you think?
simple answer is Bob , each house has different duties and different responsabilities as dictated by the Constitution, the Senate represents the states interests in government , and the house , the peoples interests , and as I have pointed out before , sometimes what is good for one is not good for the other, hense the bi-carmal congress to balance the needs of the people with the needs of the state and it is suppose to foster fruitful compromise , not that there is any lately.
people need to remember what each houses duties , and to whom they are responsible to , the 17th amendment didn't change a senators duties , just how they were placed in office , and people seem to forget that senators do not represent the people in our government , but because its the populous that elects them they think they represent the people , when they don't. once that is understood , its easy to see why there is 2 chambers of congress.
want it changed? it has to be done with a constitutional amendment , that would not pass ratification.
I understand all that, Mark.
It isn't a very democratic system.
Its existence was justifiable as long as the system worked effectively. Now, it is no longer effective. I think it is time to question the system...
Questioning it is fine, but I'll be damned if I can think of a better way to do it. If I could change one thing I would make the so-called nuclear option in the Senate, not an option on anything. Anything at all. I think even budget reconciliation should require at least a 60% majority. The Senate needs to be the "great cooling saucer" it was intended to be. I wish it was possible to get through a Constitutional Amendment ordering that. We have slipped away from part of what it was intended to be and we will all suffer for it. And no finger pointing please! BOTH parties are guilty in this!
In selecting an appropriate visual symbol of the Senate in its founding period, one might consider an anchor, a fence, or a saucer. Writing to Thomas Jefferson , who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution's framers considered the Senate to be the great "anchor" of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.
I agree on the idea of requiring supermajorities for some votes... but that doesn't imply two chambers.
Well the House is where ideas from the people through their Representatives are first debated and voted by popular vote. A simple majority. It is in the Senate, a much smaller body, where these ideas that were sorted through the House come to be more seriously considered. To see if they are, in the opinion of these older people (you have to be older to run for the Senate then for the House) who are serving longer terms and therefore are less driven by re-election and represent the entire state where they come from so they have the whole state as a constituency, more in the best interest of the whole of the nation or not. Then, if the Senate agrees, but that they have made changes they are sent to committee made up of members of both bodies to hammer out any differences. If the Senate passes what comes from the House with no changes then it's on to the President for signature. Having two houses in intended to make it much harder to change laws or implement new ones so they won't be changed or implemented on a whim or just by a simple majority of one House too quickly. The goal is to make it difficult.
You are describing the current system as it (supposedly) works. I'm talking about a more ideal system. Originally, the Senate was imagined as a second Cabinet, giving "advice annd consent" to the President. (There were only twenty-six Senators.)
The current system could hobble along as long as most Congresspersons made an effort to make it work. Now, with a significant portion purposefully sabotaging everything, the system's frailties are flagrant.
wELL THIS WHOLE THING WITH California COULD QUICKLY GET UGLY. iTS ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING A SANCTUARY STATE. That means loss of federal funds and other issues with the federal government. Now we have inland and northern counties and cities passing measures saying that they are not sanctuary governing units and that they will in every way cooperate with ICE and other federal laws regarding immigration. These places will defy California law in favor of obeying federal law. When GOP counties get federal funding and democrat ones don't and if the state tries to cut off funding to counties complying with federal law, it could get quite interesting. Many of the Jefferson counties have done or will soon do this. Will the state police send units to these counties to stand between local law enforcement and the feds when locals try to hand over illegals to the feds?
Are you saying that you are OK with the federal government leaning on the states?
LMFAO!!!!!!! SERIOUSLY?
the feds have leaned on the states for decades to get their way and everyone has been alright with it until its a subject they disagree with , how did the mandatory min drinking age get put in place? lets go further back when speed limits were 55mph , how you think that got implemented nationally? it wasn't the states agreeing , it was under threat of loosing federal highway funds , and there are more examples to be sure.
Yes.
I assumed that XX, too, would have a jaundiced view of federal intervention in the states... but that seemed to be what he was calling for.
Im generally against federal intervention in state matters. California is a unique case though where the majority ignores and rides roughshod over the minority trampling upon our necks with their jackboots. So, yes there are times where federal intervention to protect minority rights is justified. Particularly if the state tries to punish local areas for following federal law.
So... federal intervention is OK if it's on your side...
The cites, blue counties and agricultural areas will not cooperate with ICE and the rest of the state can do as it pleases. There are very few undocumented people in the other areas anyway and they are welcome to move areas where they will be protected. As for federal funding, the federal government won't care what county you are in if the state declares itself a sanctuary state.
Not true. If a county says it is not sanctuary and its LEO's are actively cooperating with the ICE and border patrol, etc. those counties will retain their federal funding.
Not true. If a county says it is not sanctuary and its LEO's are actively cooperating with the ICE and border patrol, etc. those counties will retain their federal funding.
Hey, California, at least the southern portion could once again be part of Mexico!
wELL THIS WHOLE THING WITH California COULD QUICKLY GET UGLY. iTS ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING A SANCTUARY STATE. That means loss of federal funds and other issues with the federal government. Now we have inland and northern counties and cities passing measures saying that they are not sanctuary governing units and that they will in every way cooperate with ICE and other federal laws regarding immigration. These places will defy California law in favor of obeying federal law. When GOP counties get federal funding and democrat ones don't and if the state tries to cut off funding to counties complying with federal law, it could get quite interesting. Many of the Jefferson counties have done or will soon do this. Will the state police send units to these counties to stand between local law enforcement and the feds when locals try to hand over illegals to the feds?