I am also waiting for Puerto Rico to become the 51st state.

I really wasn’t being serious anyway. The whole thing sounds so silly.

Sounds like another case of urban versus rural. It honestly would make sense to cut that huge land mass into two, probably be easier to govern. But even if everyone was on board with the split the sheer cost and effort it would require is prohibitive.

That is their point. They don't have representation in their mind. If you look at the map showing who wants to break away, its covers like 95% of the total land area, yet I would guess they only represent 30% of the total population. Thus you have the highly populated urban areas electing all of the government in that state. The officials running for government there know this and thus pander to the urban areas and make all the rules that benefit the urban area.

It's the very reason we don't have a popular vote for president, but the one we have. It's so that people running for president don't just pander 100% to the huge cities and ignore 95% of the rest of the country.

Last I knew voting works by voice, not by land mass.

California is a mess. Highest population. highest poverty %, highest taxes. A total mess.

This makes sense and I understand why the rural cities would want it, but its not going to happen.

That's the way it was supposed to work - the EC was supposed to be 1 per senator (2 per state) and 1 per rep (so each state got 3 no matter how small).

You are (based on how it was setup) supposed to have 1 member of the house per 30,000 voters.  This means that places with larger populations were *by design* meant to have a larger voice.  The idea that low population states were supposed to be protected was based on the 'min 3 votes' and the senate - which was always 2 per state no matter the population - thus ensuring that a small state would never have less voice than a big state.

The EC and house though - those were supposed to be pure 'biggest voice wins' types of things - the changes to the house (because of building size) in the early 20th century stopped us from adding more reps - and caused the situation we are in now - which is the *opposite* of how our country was meant to be run.

They didn't. That's what's partly motivating it. The rural areas in California, like with the rest of the country, are much more conservative.

So this is the conservative parts of the state reacting to the fact that they're in a permanently democratic state and wanting to fix that.

It's not by land mass, but by demographics. The rural areas or small cities want completely different things than the big urban cities.

Take video games since we are on this site. How would you like it if every time a publisher was to make a new game they would send out a poll to the masses on what type of game it should be. There are more FPS fans than any other, so every single game from every publisher is a fps game.  Or how about when the Wii was released and they did a poll. The masses would have voted that they want every single game made to be motion controlled cause WIi Sports was fun. Would us forum dwellers on this site like that? We got outvoted, so we can't complain right. Democracy.

It's the same for those non big city places. The governors/senators/ect are making laws that benefit or help the people in the city and either are detrimental to other people or ignore them completely. They wouldn't care about the rural areas cause the number of voters there is insignificant to the big city.

Mob rule is never good rule.

Is there a word for it?

California has highest poverty rate of all US states, new report finds

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/10/04/california-highest-poverty-rate-u-s-states-report-finds/

A little more than 20 percent of Californians — about 8 million people — live in poverty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7HozzSGakA