To be fair, I am all for statehood of the various American colonies and protectorates out there. No reason American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam the Virign Islands or the Marinaras shouldn't have someone representing them. Heck, DC has a vote - why not them?

Because it needs to pass a vote and DC is extremly democratic.

It's the same reason DC won't be folded into Virginia or any other state.

Which honestly I feel should be more the case.

DC is waaaay to tiny to be it's own state.  Way to tiny for even one senator if you ask me.

We're past worries where having the capital in a state would lead to big problems.

Isn't that the case with pretty much any govt at any level though? Even in a local district, someone was against whoever got elected there. Where do we draw the line? Pretty much everyone disagrees on something but humans aren't self-sufficient and thus must co-operate and learn to agree to disagree. The Federal one could be solved rather easily by using the popular vote instead of the electoral college but a lot of people would still be disenfranchised. Can we split the country in half? Even then a lot of people would be disenfranchised at some level.

Amongst dems for example, there was always the huge divide between Clinton and Obama so even if  Democrats were the only party, there still won't be unity...same goes for the republicans. In order words, as long as a group of people live together and have a govt, there will always be different views on the best way to govern...at least we can all take comfort in believeing that we all want the best for our country but some don't even believe that xD

It's always convenient to blame opposing views when something goes wrong but we will never progress till we learn to share the blame.

Wouldn't that screw up the American flag? What would you do with the extra star?

In all seriousness, I'm not American but I'll say I'm always for democracy and self determination, so whatever the Californians (or South Californians) want should be enforced IMO.

I agree, they should all have representation as well - or allowed to succeed.  However, that is NOT what Obama meant.  He meant to say "47" because he had visited 47 of the 48 contiguous states, but instead, he said "57"... which is pretty damned funny (and sad at the same time for a presidential candidate).  It's like the Quayle"Potatoe" fiasco all over again.

instead of splitting perhaps people could just move wherever they think follows their ideology? This behavior is not uncommon and if you look hard enough, there are minority groups being ignored in every area in every state. chances are that there are pockets of liberals even in so-called "conservative CA" and they have no voice as well.

that guy has the option of moving. he's pretty funny nonetheless.

What I'm saying is not related (necessarily) to political parties as much as it is to political ideologies ...

While one political party may be dominant in many states, rarely is this political divide representative of a much larger ideological divide; effectively, you have some differences on major local issues that define the differences between the parties, but (overall) their beliefs are fairly similar.

When you have an ideological divide, for example mainstream democratic-free market beliefs on one hand and near-communist beliefs on the other hand, it is difficult to have a functioning government for a large portion of your population; because it becomes a winner take all situation.

Oh, they are. Texas is booming while CA is becoming a death trap. The question is if anyone in CA survives the collapse. Thus the argument for scession.

I think california should be split. It is a huge state and carries too much weight in general elections and the house. I also think thy should split texas and new york as well.