I doubt if this has any chance. But given how large California is, splitting the state seems like it makes some sense. Aside from the political pandering/ideology type stuff.
Quote
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/california.secession/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
51st state? California politician pushes secession plan
Riverside, California (CNN) -- A conservative county supervisor in Southern California wants to form the 51st state by seceding the region from California, saying the state's problems require "radical" solutions.
"Listen, I knew I'd be criticized. I learned in my tenure of being a politician for 19 years, sometimes you have to do radical things to get people's attention," Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone said on CNN Thursday.
"We have hit a nerve with citizens who are just fed up with business as usual in the state," Stone said. "I'm talking about a secession plan from the state of California."
This week, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors gave the OK to Stone to hold a summit of California's local leaders to discuss remedies for the state's long list of woes -- including secession.
But the county board stopped short of endorsing Stone's secessionist plan by insisting no taxpayer money be used for the conference.
Stone has come up with a name for the new state: South California. It would be composed of 13 largely Republican counties, most of which are inland along the Nevada and Arizona state lines. The plan would exclude Los Angeles County, but would include Orange and San Diego Counties, both on the coast.
Stone has a long list of grievances against the state and its legislators: high taxes and fees, inability to reform welfare programs, high unemployment and excessive regulations.
"What the state has done is they've been balancing their budgets on the backs of our local coffers. They've been stealing our sales tax, property tax," Stone said. "The bottom line for me and my constituents is jobs. We are sending jobs out of the state of California by the train load."
Riverside County is among the hardest hit communities by the recession and mortgage meltdown, leaving many communities pockmarked with vacant homes, Stone said.
"We are the foreclosure capital of the world," Stone asserted. "We have some areas of the county that have 25% unemployment. The average in Riverside County is about 15%."
Stone's plan seems a long shot, one analyst said. There have been at least 27 efforts for secession within parts of California since the 1800s, and none has been successful.
Robert Melsh, a political science instructor at Mount San Jacinto College in San Jacinto, California, which is in Riverside County, said Stone's plan stunned him, largely because of the high cost of putting a secessionist plan before voters. He called it a "scare tactic."
"Insanity," Melsh said. "I mean this is major surgery where we need a Band-Aid.
"It takes millions of dollars to get the signatures necessary to put up an initiative," Melsh added.
Melsh also raised the question of getting a 51st state's government up and running.
"Where is he going to put the capitol? Disneyland?" Melsh said.
Stone, a pharmacist and owner of an innovative compounding pharmacy, said he drew the lines for a new state by picking 13 counties that were contiguous and fiscally conservative or moderate.
A date for the summit of local leaders has yet to be scheduled, he said.
Quote from: KRonn on July 15, 2011, 04:32:27 PM
I doubt if this has any chance. But given how large California is, splitting the state seems like it makes some sense. Aside from the political pandering/ideology type stuff.
Excellent, Garbon will be conscripted into the Army of the Bay. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 04:38:31 PM
Excellent, Garbon will be conscripted into the Army of the Bay. :cool:
I don't think New York would allow one of it's residents to be grabbed up.
Also, KRonn, I don't think a Southern California without LA makes sense. Just no.
The region on the map looks like a logical extension of Nevada. Time to annex!
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2011, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 15, 2011, 04:38:31 PM
Excellent, Garbon will be conscripted into the Army of the Bay. :cool:
I don't think New York would allow one of it's residents to be grabbed up.
Also, KRonn, I don't think a Southern California without LA makes sense. Just no.
Well, I don't think Southern Cal w/o LA makes sense either. But I wonder if the idea of a split makes some sense? Some other states are huge with large populations, like Texas. But Cali is a huge part of the western coastline, like from Florida to Virginia on the east coast. I don't necessarily want to see a split, don't care either way.
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
Metropolexas - A state consisting of the downtown areas of Austin, Houston, Ft Worth, Dallas as well as the campus area of U of Texas at Austin.
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2011, 03:49:10 AM
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
Metropolexas - A state consisting of the downtown areas of Austin, Houston, Ft Worth, Dallas as well as the campus area of U of Texas at Austin.
That would suck for all the UT students who were now out-of-state and had to pay higher tuition.
Splitting California makes sense.
Along these lines does not.
QuoteArticle IV, Section 3: Section 3 - New States
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Good luck getting congress to sign off on that!
Quote from: JonasSalk on July 16, 2011, 11:02:29 AM
QuoteArticle IV, Section 3: Section 3 - New States
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Good luck getting congress to sign off on that!
As I read this, Congress cannot sign off on "new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;" that is a separate clause. Makes West Virginia's existence kind of an interesting exercise in ignoring what was written in favor of what the readers (Lincoln's administration and Congress) wanted to see.
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2011, 03:49:10 AM
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
Metropolexas - A state consisting of the downtown areas of Austin, Houston, Ft Worth, Dallas as well as the campus area of U of Texas at Austin.
:D
Although a more realistic option could be a state that encompass El Paso, Austin, San Antonio and the Rio Grande region. We could call it Tejas.
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
The entire stated purpose is to split off net revenue contributors from revenue consumers (i.e. LA).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2011, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
The entire stated purpose is to split off net revenue contributors from revenue consumers (i.e. LA).
Really? I would think it's the other way around. Cities are more cost efficient then rural areas, and generate more revenue. It costs much more to provide road service to say 100,000 people in rural Montana then it does to provide road service to 100,000 people in Newark, New Jersey. Not to mention the fact that urban areas tend to have higher pay rates (which is balanced by higher costs in goods), then rural areas. When this is taken as a percentage in tax the urban areas are likely to generate greater revenue per person then a rural area.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
Really? I would think it's the other way around. Cities are more cost efficient then rural areas, and generate more revenue. It costs much more to provide road service to say 100,000 people in rural Montana then it does to provide road service to 100,000 people in Newark, New Jersey. Not to mention the fact that urban areas tend to have higher pay rates (which is balanced by higher costs in goods), then rural areas. When this is taken as a percentage in tax the urban areas are likely to generate greater revenue per person then a rural area.
Orange County and San Diego are hardly rural areas.
It's debateable whether LA generates more tax revenue per inhabitant than the southern counties. What's not debateable is that LA consumes much more revenue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2011, 02:04:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
Really? I would think it's the other way around. Cities are more cost efficient then rural areas, and generate more revenue. It costs much more to provide road service to say 100,000 people in rural Montana then it does to provide road service to 100,000 people in Newark, New Jersey. Not to mention the fact that urban areas tend to have higher pay rates (which is balanced by higher costs in goods), then rural areas. When this is taken as a percentage in tax the urban areas are likely to generate greater revenue per person then a rural area.
Orange County and San Diego are hardly rural areas.
It's debateable whether LA generates more tax revenue per inhabitant than the southern counties. What's not debateable is that LA consumes much more revenue.
LA consumes more revenue then what? What is that based on? Per capita? Total?
Per capita.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2011, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
The entire stated purpose is to split off net revenue contributors from revenue consumers (i.e. LA).
Oh come on. They're carving out the most Republican parts of southern California and purposely excluding the heart of the region because it'd probably make the state Democratic overall.
Quote from: Fate on July 16, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
Oh come on. They're carving out the most Republican parts of southern California and purposely excluding the heart of the region because it'd probably make the state Democratic overall.
Oh come on.
Now your turn again.
Wouldn't any state that contains Austin automatically be Texas? :P
This is stupid to talk about because it isn't going to happen, but...
Wouldn't it be better to sort of gerrymander a republican state out of southern california? Right now California has a constitution that allows the minority a significant say, and you have a state both in crisis and deadlocked because the two sides can't come together. If you put the republicans in one state and the democrats in another, both could get the government that they want.
It would only disadvantage the democrats to the tune of 2 new senators, and I doubt southern california would be a solid republican state anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2011, 04:54:05 PM
Wouldn't any state that contains Austin automatically be Texas? :P
They can move the capital back to the proper site, Washington-on-the-Brazos. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 05:03:43 PM
This is stupid to talk about because it isn't going to happen, but...
Wouldn't it be better to sort of gerrymander a republican state out of southern california? Right now California has a constitution that allows the minority a significant say, and you have a state both in crisis and deadlocked because the two sides can't come together. If you put the republicans in one state and the democrats in another, both could get the government that they want.
It would only disadvantage the democrats to the tune of 2 new senators, and I doubt southern california would be a solid republican state anyway.
I don't think the Republican-Democrat split is all the geographic in California. You could gerrymander a partisan state that was non-contiguous, or you could gerrymander a contiguous one with a Sudetenland, but neither outcome would be an improvement.
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2011, 05:39:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 05:03:43 PM
This is stupid to talk about because it isn't going to happen, but...
Wouldn't it be better to sort of gerrymander a republican state out of southern california? Right now California has a constitution that allows the minority a significant say, and you have a state both in crisis and deadlocked because the two sides can't come together. If you put the republicans in one state and the democrats in another, both could get the government that they want.
It would only disadvantage the democrats to the tune of 2 new senators, and I doubt southern california would be a solid republican state anyway.
I don't think the Republican-Democrat split is all the geographic in California. You could gerrymander a partisan state that was non-contiguous, or you could gerrymander a contiguous one with a Sudetenland, but neither outcome would be an improvement.
It looks like the proposal is to have southern california until approximately LA, and then exclude the coast up a bit further. So it isn't horribly geographically gerrymandered, but it isn't a strict north south split either. I don't know to the extent that captures the republican areas--but I guess it would get enough republicans out of the state legislature to keep them from blocking any tax increases.
And all the actors in Beverly Hills, the lawyers in San Francisco, and software developers in San Jose who have been begging for their taxes to be raised could have their wish come true. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2011, 04:54:05 PM
Wouldn't any state that contains Austin automatically be Texas? :P
Any state containing Lubbock would be Texas, the one containing Austin but not Lubbock would be considered Civilized.
When Texas joined up, wasn't there a clause that they could split up into multiple states, or am I remembering that wrong? :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 16, 2011, 08:32:58 PM
When Texas joined up, wasn't there a clause that they could split up into multiple states, or am I remembering that wrong? :hmm:
Yeah. They can split into 5 according to the annexation act.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 08:39:18 PM
Cite?
Look at the same source you used to come up with all the crap you posted at the beginning of the thread.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2011, 08:43:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 16, 2011, 08:32:58 PM
When Texas joined up, wasn't there a clause that they could split up into multiple states, or am I remembering that wrong? :hmm:
Yeah. They can split into 5 according to the annexation act.
Overridden by the Civil War.
Quote from: ulmont on July 17, 2011, 01:13:30 PM
Overridden by the Civil War.
Not unless you count the secession as legal, and we don't. :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2011, 02:23:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2011, 08:39:18 PM
Cite?
Look at the same source you used to come up with all the crap you posted at the beginning of the thread.
Please clarify.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 17, 2011, 01:52:26 PM
Quote from: ulmont on July 17, 2011, 01:13:30 PM
Overridden by the Civil War.
Not unless you count the secession as legal, and we don't. :contract:
The rebel states were readmitted though. Doesn't the terms of their readmittance trump the original?
No take backs!
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 05:52:20 PM
It looks like the proposal is to have southern california until approximately LA, and then exclude the coast up a bit further. So it isn't horribly geographically gerrymandered, but it isn't a strict north south split either. I don't know to the extent that captures the republican areas--but I guess it would get enough republicans out of the state legislature to keep them from blocking any tax increases.
It does capture a lot of the Repub areas; specifically San Diego and Orange Counties + the Inland Empire.
I think during the 19th century and perhaps the 20th several cities succeeded from their counties. This turned out be an ill-advised move when the suburban sprawl happened.
Quote from: Fate on July 16, 2011, 12:56:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2011, 03:49:10 AM
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
Metropolexas - A state consisting of the downtown areas of Austin, Houston, Ft Worth, Dallas as well as the campus area of U of Texas at Austin.
:D
Although a more realistic option could be a state that encompass El Paso, Austin, San Antonio and the Rio Grande region. We could call it Tejas.
Then they can annex south and call themselves Aztlan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2011, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
The entire stated purpose is to split off net revenue contributors from revenue consumers (i.e. LA).
What would be the population proportions of both states? Unless it is 50/50 it's hardly fair seeing how they would get the same number of senators.
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2011, 04:37:19 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2011, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
The entire stated purpose is to split off net revenue contributors from revenue consumers (i.e. LA).
What would be the population proportions of both states? Unless it is 50/50 it's hardly fair seeing how they would get the same number of senators.
That's the whole point, goof.
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2011, 04:37:19 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2011, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 15, 2011, 11:23:12 PM
The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. :lol:
The entire stated purpose is to split off net revenue contributors from revenue consumers (i.e. LA).
What would be the population proportions of both states? Unless it is 50/50 it's hardly fair seeing how they would get the same number of senators.
Unfair? Every state gets two senators. Not sure why this "Southern California" shouldn't get two if Delaware and Rhode Island get two. San Diego alone is more populous than ether.
Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2011, 07:37:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2011, 04:37:19 AM
What would be the population proportions of both states? Unless it is 50/50 it's hardly fair seeing how they would get the same number of senators.
That's the whole point, goof.
Give him a break. In Poland, everyone theoretically gets the same number of taters, so Polacks think that that is the way everything works everywhere.
lolz. polacks.
What's unfair is that Wyoming gets 2 senators!
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 05:03:43 PM
It would only disadvantage the democrats to the tune of 2 new senators, and I doubt southern california would be a solid republican state anyway.
Yeah, even if it was to start with, that wouldn't necessarily last. Back when Alaska was admitted as a state, it was partly done by the Democratic-controlled Congress to add another solidly Democratic state, but Alaska hasn't turned out to be nearly as solidly in the Democratic camp as they hoped (and that's actually a bit of an understatement).
Quote from: viper37has there been a split of States previously (since 1776, say), or where actual States carved from territories?
There have been a few States split since 1776:
Kentucky from Virginia (1792), Mississippi and Alabama (territory split from Georgia in 1802 into the Mississippi Territory), Maine from Massachusetts (1820), West Virginia from Virginia (1863).
Most of the rest of the States were organized from territories (and those territories were often rearranged or split before statehood), with some exceptions (Vermont and Texas were independent before becoming States, and California was admitted directly as a State after a war with Mexico rather than passing through a territory stage).
Edit: Maine from Massachusetts, check.
Don't forget Maine from Massachusetts.
Quote from: dps on July 18, 2011, 01:08:49 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2011, 05:03:43 PM
It would only disadvantage the democrats to the tune of 2 new senators, and I doubt southern california would be a solid republican state anyway.
Yeah, even if it was to start with, that wouldn't necessarily last. Back when Alaska was admitted as a state, it was partly done by the Democratic-controlled Congress to add another solidly Democratic state, but Alaska hasn't turned out to be nearly as solidly in the Democratic camp as they hoped (and that's actually a bit of an understatement).
Hawaii was let into counterballance it as a Republican stronghold. :lol: