@Sheldon Scott IMO, then, Texas ought to be split into ten. The talk of secession has gone on ad nauseum. During Clinton's administration, several states, notably Montana and Texas, big states, revealed statements by their Governors that if Clinton's Crime Bill was passed, they would secede. Crime Bill became law, Clinton's Regime got $30 Billion to pee away, purportedly studying the effect of the bill on crime rates. The "high-capacity" ammunition magazine ban, part of the Bill, was to be studied after 10 years by Congress, then extended if determined to have reduced gun crimes. Even that part of the Bill was ignored when the 10 years were up. In fact, NO ACTION was taken on the Crime Bill at all, after the 10-year mark. Afterwards, the magazines which had been grandfathered, existed before the Bill, dropped in value like stones thrown in a pond. AND, enormous numbers, BILLIONS of high-capacity magazines were manufactured and sold since 2003. Except in states specifically continuing to prohibit them, those states remaining as some having the HIGHEST crime rates of all, magazines or not. The magazine ban is only one example of several of failure to deliver attributable to the Crime Bill. Frank
There have always been some people in California who wanted to slit the state up into three parts.........Northern, Central and Southern. Many folks in the northern part don't want to be associated with the southern part at all. "Too fast-paced, too much traffic" are just two reasons why. Another thing, many people in the U.S. see Los Angeles as "California". Actually, when a person visits Shasta Lake area, in northern California, they can really see the difference between northern and the rest of the state.
That would add four more wacko liberal senators to the US senate. Not a good idea. I'd rather see California secede from the Union altogether.
Californians have been talking about splitting up the state all of my life and it hasn't happened yet and I don't think it ever will nor should it happen. California is arguably the most progressive state in the union as well as a great economic engine.
He meant the elected officials, Chrissy. Anyway, just think of it this way. For many, many years now, people have been saying that when the “Big One” (quake) happens, California will break off and fall into the ocean. If they divide the state into three parts, only the little edge along Los Angeles will be California in name, so the rest of the state won’t fall into the ocean.
This is only a proposition to get onto the ballot in the next election right? Even if it should get a majority I kinda doubt that it would happen. If it did, how would that affect the Electoral College I wonder because California has 55 (I think) votes so can swing an election. They are population based so dividing the state into 3 could alter that could it not?
My first knee jerk reaction was to say it would just add 4 more liberal senators and not change the electoral process. However research indicates that is not a slam dunk and quite likely could the state of Southern California would be republican. From past 2 elections... It is not out of the realm of possibility that two added senators would be republican, cancelling out the 2 added democrats and then the potential for the current 55 electoral votes to adjusted to 59, with only about 40 electoral votes guaranteed to democrats and 19 possibly for the republicans. I highlighted the 2012 as evidence, rather than 2016... just because. It is very predictable as to which party is for and which is against... this idea. There is no chance of this proposal succeeding, imo.