DescentBB

Well, seems that the momentum to split CA into 6 states is gaining ground:

"Los Angeles (United States) (AFP) - A plan to divide California into six separate US states is closer to making it on to a November ballot, with organizers gaining approval to collect signatures.

The seemingly far-fetched initiative, sponsored by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, claims "political representation of California's diverse population and economies has rendered the state nearly ungovernable."

And on Tuesday, the California Secretary of State's office gave the movement a boost, saying that proponents "may begin collecting petition signatures."
http://news.yahoo.com/plan-split-califo ... 39687.html

Not having heard of this before with CA, it seems there is a movement among a number states to split up due to one party rule that is not responsive to out lying areas. will watch how this plays out with some interest. The movement seems to revolve around the concentrated city populations controlling policies statewide where political policies of the cities are not compatible with needs of outlying areas.

we had a thread on this, I thought, a month or so ago. Nice try but it won't go anywhere.

That's THE stupidest and most impractical idea I've ever heard. What are we going to have, cities and rural areas becoming their own states? I see this as MORE divisive to our country than what we have now. The cities will be isolated from each other like little islands and the rural states could end up as trolls that control infrastructure access between those city states. I see nothing but more arguments and war between these new states, and you know why? All because rural conservatives hate those liberals and their laws in the cities, who have more voting power because of shear numbers.

of course it's divisive, and the reasoning behind it is pretty much what you state, TC. It's also flagrantly unconstitutional. That simply is not the process for creating, or adding, states within the Union. They can vote for 5 or 25 different states, but unless approved by a supermajority of Congress,and going through a long process, it isn't going to happen. Think of it as a matter of political fairness. What is now California would go from 2 Senators to 12? I'm sure that's going to fly in the Senate.

callmeslick wrote:we had a thread on this, I thought, a month or so ago. Nice try but it won't go anywhere.

Yes, on December 31st, started by woodchip. That thread should have been bumped instead of creating a new thread when there are no significant developments. The only way I could see California splitting up is if there were animosity between the different regions, or at least between the tech north and entertainment south. But there isn't. In fact, Californians are all stupidly in love with each other all across the state. As a skeptic, there are very few things I believe with 100% certainty. I am 100% certain California will remain a state. There is a greater chance of it seceding from the US than splitting up. Of course, I'm just repeating myself in a clone of another thread.

Still, I wonder if woodchip posted a second thread so recent to the first because he thinks it is actual, pressing news or because we are seeing the signs of early dementia.

well, I didn't post anything like this before, but this is a good analysis of just SOME of the hurdles involved:
http://verdict.justia.com/2014/01/03/po ... california

California should be two states. North and south California.

Anyway, I can see why democrats would be threatened by this. 55 electoral votes going their way every single presidential election is something they count on.

A 'Northern California' would be purple or even red.

It's a case where northern Californians are always steamrolled by the liberal south and their voices silenced.

ThunderBunny wrote:California should be two states. North and south California.

Anyway, I can see why democrats would be threatened by this. 55 electoral votes going their way every single presidential election is something they count on.

A 'Northern California' would be purple or even red.

It's a case where northern Californians are always steamrolled by the liberal south and their voices silenced.

closer to home, why don't we divvy up Texas......? Please, there was a reason for the electoral college and current setup, and it was created before there were Democrats or Republicans. I love how the right likes to hold the Founders dear when it suits them.....

callmeslick wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:California should be two states. North and south California.

Anyway, I can see why democrats would be threatened by this. 55 electoral votes going their way every single presidential election is something they count on.

A 'Northern California' would be purple or even red.

It's a case where northern Californians are always steamrolled by the liberal south and their voices silenced.

closer to home, why don't we divvy up Texas......? Please, there was a reason for the electoral college and current setup, and it was created before there were Democrats or Republicans. I love how the right likes to hold the Founders dear when it suits them.....

And you presume to know what the Founders had in mind but do you really?

Original plan

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided for the original fashion by which the President and Vice President were to be chosen by the electors. In the original system, the candidate who received both the most votes and votes from more than half of the electors would become President; the candidate receiving the second most votes would become Vice President.

The design of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:[16]
Each state would employ the district system of allocating electors.
Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of President and Vice President.

The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress.

On these facts, some scholars have described the Electoral College as being intended to nominate candidates from which the Congress would then select a President and Vice President.[17]

from here

wikipedia? Seriously, Will? Try a real source, not a collection of gibberish from amateurs. Most scholars ascribe the design(far more simply) to a compromise allowing for smaller states and larger states to have a relative balance of influence NOT specifically based upon size or population. Thus, maintaining rather strict control over the numbers of states plays a bit of a part there, so there are a lot of hurdles to creating a new state(or states). Sure, it was done pretty often in the first 100 years, because we acquired control over lands that were largely unsettled. There is virtually no precedent for taking a settled, existing State and subdividing it.
Returning to the purposes behind the electoral college, part of what was cited was correct, insofar as the Founders wanted some control to ultimately lie with Congress, one house of which was essentially hand-selected from the 'elite' of the time(Senate). However, the system has served us, rather fortuitously, QUITE well, and in the overwhelming number of subsequent elections, the popular vote winner was the ultimate President(some variants, notably GW Bush of late, were so close in vote count as to be considered pretty valid). Every argument I've ever heard, and they were mostly all recent, around blowing up the electoral college, seems to come from the group who gerrymandered their way into control over the House(barely). Worth noting, in the past election, FAR more Democrats votes were cast for the House than Republican votes, yet(hmmm)the GOP managed to hold the House. No wonder the same crew now suggests that we tie electoral votes to House votes. Note, they seldom seem to wish that Presidential elections be tied directly to total popular vote. How come?

ThunderBunny wrote:California should be two states. North and south California.

Actually, three states. L.A. State, Bay Area State, and everything all around that's rural called Rural State. L.A. and the Bay Area could pretty much get along with each other. The Rural State wouldn't get along with either at all.

ThunderBunny wrote:California should be two states. North and south California.

As a current and former California resident, this idea is completely idiotic. If anything, California should annex everything West of the Rocky Mountains then secede.

callmeslick wrote:wikipedia? Seriously, Will? Try a real source, not a collection of gibberish from amateurs. Most scholars ascribe the design(far more simply) to a compromise allowing for smaller states and larger states to have a relative balance of influence NOT specifically based upon size or population. Thus, maintaining rather strict control over the numbers of states plays a bit of a part there, so there are a lot of hurdles to creating a new state(or states). Sure, it was done pretty often in the first 100 years, because we acquired control over lands that were largely unsettled. There is virtually no precedent for taking a settled, existing State and subdividing it.
Returning to the purposes behind the electoral college, part of what was cited was correct, insofar as the Founders wanted some control to ultimately lie with Congress, one house of which was essentially hand-selected from the 'elite' of the time(Senate). However, the system has served us, rather fortuitously, QUITE well, and in the overwhelming number of subsequent elections, the popular vote winner was the ultimate President(some variants, notably GW Bush of late, were so close in vote count as to be considered pretty valid). Every argument I've ever heard, and they were mostly all recent, around blowing up the electoral college, seems to come from the group who gerrymandered their way into control over the House(barely). Worth noting, in the past election, FAR more Democrats votes were cast for the House than Republican votes, yet(hmmm)the GOP managed to hold the House. No wonder the same crew now suggests that we tie electoral votes to House votes. Note, they seldom seem to wish that Presidential elections be tied directly to total popular vote. How come?

You are such a tool slick. A "real source" ?!? The source that is in the wiki link is the CONSTITUTION....

And I never implied what the Constitution says was in support of the division of California as you implied.
I merely pointed to it because your pompous attitude about people selectively trumpeting the Founders intent. You need a little ego check here and there...like daily....

Will Robinson wrote:You are such a tool slick. A "real source" ?!? The source that is in the wiki link is the CONSTITUTION....

after which, the anonymous 'expert' who wrote the section went into a set of assumptions for which there is(to my knowledge) ZERO backup from the writings of the people involved at the time.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You are such a tool slick. A "real source" ?!? The source that is in the wiki link is the CONSTITUTION....

after which, the anonymous 'expert' who wrote the section went into a set of assumptions for which there is(to my knowledge) ZERO backup from the writings of the people involved at the time.

Pardon me for not taking you, with your "zero knowledge", as reason to doubt the logic that the original plan had congress likely to be making final selections because of how the voting was likely to turn out.
I'll pick logic over your proclamations every time.

such an angry elf!

And once again slick can't come up with anything to back his assertions and in the end resorts to name calling...like a good little Lib.

woodchip wrote:And once again slick can't come up with anything to back his assertions and in the end resorts to name calling...like a good little Lib.

um, he was the one calling me 'such a tool'......why dignify that further? I thought a Will Farrell reference to be perfect. Frankly, there's no need to beat this (second go round) subject to death. It will NEVER become a reality. NEVER. First off, the voters of California will likely reject it(I'd guess by a 2-1 or better margin). Second, the Congress would never go along, and thirdly, nothing about it follows the established pattern for creating new states, so the SCOTUS would likely sink it, as well. But, like SO much right-wing looniness, there are bucks to be made selling the effort, so there you have it.

by the way, don't you all love the selective Woody outrage? I get called a 'tool', nary a peep. But, dare I give a sarcastic response to same, and damned if I am not a bundle of empty arguments. Of course, anyone who has sampled his VERY selective outrage at our duly elected(twice) President can understand why I don't take it personally!

Didn't you know that's because "liberals" are the aggressors and conservatives are the "victims". You can't win slick. Conservatives can make pretzels out of any argument just to fit their logic.

Lol hilarious…I remember slick calling Duper a “tool” just the other day, for absolutely no good reason at all.

Wasn't Vermont created from New York in 1791 using the same process, as well as Kentucky in 1792 from Virginia, Tennessee from North Carolina in 1796, Maine from Massachusetts in 1820, West Virginia from Virginia in 1863?

So if there is a precedent for this action why would SCOTUS strike it down?

Spidey wrote:Lol hilarious…I remember slick calling Duper a “tool” just the other day, for absolutely no good reason at all.

other than he stated, and stood by, the comment suggesting folks are poor due to bad decisions.

Heretic wrote:Wasn't Vermont created from New York in 1791 using the same process, as well as Kentucky in 1792 from Virginia, Tennessee from North Carolina in 1796, Maine from Massachusetts in 1820, West Virginia from Virginia in 1863?

So if there is a precedent for this action why would SCOTUS strike it down?

no, not the same, due to the fact that some of those regions had NO ESTABLISHED government. Further, In the case of the NC and VA examples, at the time the territory of those states extended the length of the US, and little of it was settled at all. Vermont was created before the end of the revolution, and hence doesn't come under any Constitutional precedent, and Maine was settled, in terms of territorial possession, by the War of 1812. There is no precedent for taking a state which is already established, populated and legally governed, and creating little states out of it. Further, to establish such a precedent would be a DISASTER, opening the gates to the creation of something akin to pre-WW I Europe(a bunch of tiny states).

A lack of precedence doesn't stop the Federal government.

If enough of them decide they like the idea then the chosen will have spoken and the rest just suck it up and move on.

This country is more likely to become a (de facto) single federal state, than to ever break down into smaller states.

(not a good thing as well)

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Lol hilarious…I remember slick calling Duper a “tool” just the other day, for absolutely no good reason at all.

other than he stated, and stood by, the comment suggesting folks are poor due to bad decisions.

So you insulted him because you didn’t like his opinion.

It seems that both sides have been resorting to name calling of late. TC that pretzel bends both ways of late also.

And that's why my posting has dropped of recently. I'm beginning to dislike what this forum is turning into. And worse off I'm getting caught up in it myself. And I like that even less.

CUDA wrote:And that's why my posting has dropped of recently. I'm beginning to dislike what this forum is turning into. And worse off I'm getting caught up in it myself. And I like that even less.

Didn't that all start after you invited slick here ?

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Lol hilarious…I remember slick calling Duper a “tool” just the other day, for absolutely no good reason at all.

other than he stated, and stood by, the comment suggesting folks are poor due to bad decisions.

So you insulted him because you didn’t like his opinion.

yup, and, he chose not to respond after that. Now, the difference lies in that I don't condemn him for having an empty argument. It was the end of the discussion. He made an assertion that both insults intelligence and is patently false, I responded, after FIRST giving him the chance to elaborate, with a somewhat dismissive remark, end of exchange.

Spidey wrote:This country is more likely to become a (de facto) single federal state, than to ever break down into smaller states.

(not a good thing as well)

isn't that (de facto) what it has been since it was settled from sea to sea?

woodchip wrote:

CUDA wrote:And that's why my posting has dropped of recently. I'm beginning to dislike what this forum is turning into. And worse off I'm getting caught up in it myself. And I like that even less.

Didn't that all start after you invited slick here ?

from 'slicks reading of the archives before my very first post, no, it didn't.

callmeslick wrote:we had a thread on this, I thought, a month or so ago. Nice try but it won't go anywhere.

Page 2....do you still think it won't go anywhere?

he's answered that question already in both threads.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:This country is more likely to become a (de facto) single federal state, than to ever break down into smaller states.

(not a good thing as well)

isn't that (de facto) what it has been since it was settled from sea to sea?

A single country…yes…a place where all of the laws have to be uniform and handed down from above…no

We are not there yet, but I can see it coming, examples are all over the place, especially in education.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Lol hilarious…I remember slick calling Duper a “tool” just the other day, for absolutely no good reason at all.

other than he stated, and stood by, the comment suggesting folks are poor due to bad decisions.

heh, and I was right. You didn't understand. You're statement here is presumptive and a misquote.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:we had a thread on this, I thought, a month or so ago. Nice try but it won't go anywhere.

Page 2....do you still think it won't go anywhere?

well, I long ago gave up attempting to predict the legs on threads, but the multi-state thing, no I don't.

Duper wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Lol hilarious…I remember slick calling Duper a “tool” just the other day, for absolutely no good reason at all.

other than he stated, and stood by, the comment suggesting folks are poor due to bad decisions.

heh, and I was right. You didn't understand. You're statement here is presumptive and a misquote.

I gave you a chance to elaborate. I got a snarky response. I responded in kind. Feel free, whenever the spirit moves you, to elaborate.

I take personal offense to the statement that poor people are poor due to bad decisions. So thanks for painting all us poor people with a broad brush.

I'm poor as hell, duper. does that mean I made bad decisions in life?