By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - What do you think about the California Secession idea?

 

Do you support the two-state solution in California?

Yes - Two states are better than one! 27 39.13%
 
No - Two states is the wrong idea, period. 19 27.54%
 
No - The counties picked ... 0 0%
 
Just two states? Make it three! 9 13.04%
 
I just want to see the answer! 14 20.29%
 
Total:69
Pristine20 on 04 July 2011
HappySqurriel said:
Pristine20 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Pristine20 said:
I dont think splitting is ever a good solution because it would only lead to more and more splits. How long before other states with similar demographics split as well? PA outside the Philadelphia region is republican while the area around Philly is highly democrat for an example...how long before we follow suit? In fact, how long before the south tries to secede again? The way I see it, it's better to have both competing parties in a state that absolute party domination...that way there are actual checks and balances.


This is the main reason many states need to split ...

Because one political ideology has a strong majority of the population in a region it means that the views of the minority are being completely ignored in both state and federal elections. If you split a completely uncompetitive state (like California) into multiple states that each are far more competitive the net result should be better governance for everyone in those newly competitive states.

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.

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.


But aren't political parties pretty much formed around political ideologies? besides, ideologies are not as rigid as parties so instigating a divide based on those is bound to have problems. Also, what happens when ideologies of a major group in an area change? Do they split again?



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Around the Network
Pristine20 on 04 July 2011
mrstickball said:
Pristine20 said:
mrstickball said:
Pristine20 said:
I dont think splitting is ever a good solution because it would only lead to more and more splits. How long before other states with similar demographics split as well? PA outside the Philadelphia region is republican while the area around Philly is highly democrat for an example...how long before we follow suit? In fact, how long before the south tries to secede again? The way I see it, it's better to have both competing parties in a state that absolute party domination...that way there are actual checks and balances.


I think the main problem, though, is that CA is in such a mess, the entire state of 30 million plus people is going to go down like a sinking ship. Their laws are an absolute mess, and no one has the willpower to fix anything whatsoever. Therefore, the question becomes: Does California and everyone go down the drain, or those that made and supported the current mess?

As HS has said, splitting along political divides may be a good thing. If you do such a thing, then you allow various ideologies to be fully vetted. Hyper-liberal areas and hyper-conservative regions can finally make policies as they see fit, and allow for more rapid prototyping of different governmental models. Not every state needs to split, but I think there are a lot of states like CA, Washington, Oregon, Texas, New York, and a few others that could potentially benefit from it, as their demographics are not similar in distribution.


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.

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.

Hmm, for the sheer no. of people who still live in CA, it's hard for me to concur that it's a death trap. I dont see a mass exodus...just a lot of people sitting and complaining.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Rath on 04 July 2011

I think it should be up to the people of the proposed state.



Kasz216 on 04 July 2011
mrstickball said:
Pristine20 said:
mrstickball said:
Pristine20 said:
I dont think splitting is ever a good solution because it would only lead to more and more splits. How long before other states with similar demographics split as well? PA outside the Philadelphia region is republican while the area around Philly is highly democrat for an example...how long before we follow suit? In fact, how long before the south tries to secede again? The way I see it, it's better to have both competing parties in a state that absolute party domination...that way there are actual checks and balances.


I think the main problem, though, is that CA is in such a mess, the entire state of 30 million plus people is going to go down like a sinking ship. Their laws are an absolute mess, and no one has the willpower to fix anything whatsoever. Therefore, the question becomes: Does California and everyone go down the drain, or those that made and supported the current mess?

As HS has said, splitting along political divides may be a good thing. If you do such a thing, then you allow various ideologies to be fully vetted. Hyper-liberal areas and hyper-conservative regions can finally make policies as they see fit, and allow for more rapid prototyping of different governmental models. Not every state needs to split, but I think there are a lot of states like CA, Washington, Oregon, Texas, New York, and a few others that could potentially benefit from it, as their demographics are not similar in distribution.


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.

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.

Anyone in CA  survives?  I'd say it's more... anyone anywhere.  CA's impending default is going to screw over the world economy.

Instead of fixing it though they use budgetary tricks to pretend the budget is balanced.

(Fun fact, by law states are not allowed to produce a budget that runs a deficit.  If they do, they are forced to shut down.  This is usually avoided by overly ambitious tax collection numbers and growth.)



RCTjunkie on 04 July 2011

Please add Sacramento to the Conservative part and I would approve. :)



WHO IS JESUS REALLY?

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 04 July 2011
Pristine20 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Pristine20 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Pristine20 said:
I dont think splitting is ever a good solution because it would only lead to more and more splits. How long before other states with similar demographics split as well? PA outside the Philadelphia region is republican while the area around Philly is highly democrat for an example...how long before we follow suit? In fact, how long before the south tries to secede again? The way I see it, it's better to have both competing parties in a state that absolute party domination...that way there are actual checks and balances.


This is the main reason many states need to split ...

Because one political ideology has a strong majority of the population in a region it means that the views of the minority are being completely ignored in both state and federal elections. If you split a completely uncompetitive state (like California) into multiple states that each are far more competitive the net result should be better governance for everyone in those newly competitive states.

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.

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.


But aren't political parties pretty much formed around political ideologies? besides, ideologies are not as rigid as parties so instigating a divide based on those is bound to have problems. Also, what happens when ideologies of a major group in an area change? Do they split again?

Political parties are formed by individuals who share certain beliefs and do not believe their current worldview is well represented by an existing political party. An ideology is much broader in scope than these political beliefs ...

Arguing over the form of taxation or the level of social benefits in a democratic capatilistic state does not represent a broad ideological divide. In many ways the most liberal portion of California believes in state run capatilism or communism and this really does represent a very broad ideological divide from the ideology of most Americans, and I suspect most conservative Californians.



Wonktonodi on 04 July 2011
mrstickball said:
HappySqurriel said:
Bong Lover said:
I currently live in what would be part of the 'conservative' California. If such a split was to happen I would most likely need to move a few miles to get out.

I find it incredibly ironic that the people suggesting this doesn't realize (or do they realize, they just hate having money?) that their part of California to a large part is feeding off the real money generating areas of the state, which would pretty much all be part of the 'liberal' California.

I haven't closely studied the figures myself so my assumption could be wrong, but I suspect that many people in "conservative California" would argue that the punitive regulatory regime and high taxes imposed on them by "liberal California" were artificially holding them back; and potentially propping up "liberal California".

Hypothetically speaking, if this was the case you would expect to see the "wealthy" half of California struggle post-split with the "poor" part of California thriving.

California's socioeconomic condition is a lot more broad than that.

The conservative area has, bar none, the best agricultural sector in the world. Period. 365 growing days a year. It is America's veggie basket as one county produces 75% of the world's output for artichokes. As stated, I think the conservative side would re-align regulations to get their mining sector back in order which would benefit the new state significantly. Remember, this new proposed state would have a $260 billion economy - larger than Finland.

Likewise, the rest of CA would still have the massive movie and tech sectors which are big in their economy. Sillicon valley is still a major force, albiet waining, and SF is a major hub of internet startups which yields massive amounts of growth and capital. However, one wonders what their taxation and spending model would be like. CA is notorious for welfare, and I question how it would handle being split up - if the liberal part would continue with its bread & circus act, or if it would finally find the cojones to deal with that area of its spending problem. Likewise, taxation would be interesting. At any rate, a split would yield an interesting case study to see what happens. Could be the start of a lot more splits which could be good for America. There are about 3-4 other movements to split states up along cultural divides, which could benefit the nation as we could decentralize government further.


That map would split central valley. So neither state would have all the good farmland. However the Northern one would still have all the farmland in the Sacramento and SAn Juaquine river deltas.



Wonktonodi on 04 July 2011
mrstickball said:

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'm curious why you say CA is a death trap? Also why you think there could actually be any sort of collapse?



mrstickball on 04 July 2011
Wonktonodi said:
mrstickball said:

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'm curious why you say CA is a death trap? Also why you think there could actually be any sort of collapse?


Lets see:

  1. California has the 3rd worst unemployment rate in America (2nd if you take out Puerto Rico). It is also recovering the slowest of any state.
  2. As you mentioned, the laws require a 2/3rds majority vote to raise taxes. Since they do not have that, they can't raise taxes very often, and resort to things like the Amazon tax which aren't going to solve the problem. Even then, their taxes are so high as they are, revenue isn't the problem - spending is.
  3. Businesses are relocating far and away from California. California has some of the worst regulatory and tax structures in America, therefore it is easier to do business elsewhere in far more pro-business states. Although CA has had these problems for awhile, they always maintained some advantages such as the tech sector being a boon, but many of these said companies are relocating to nearby states such as Oregon, Nevada, or Texas. Heck, a few companies have relocated to Ohio of all places...And if a business is relocating from somewhere to Ohio, you know its real bad.

You combine these factors ontop of their massive budgetary issues, and the long-term prospect for fixing CA is not very good. If you don't have job growth, then you aren't going to increase revenues - therefore you must raise taxes. So if neither of these things can happen, you must cut spending, which is something that CA is not doing to a level that will fix the problem.

 

Here are a few reading suggestions:

Businesses leaving CA: http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/joseph-vranich/7861-california-business-exodus-now-triple-last-years-rate

CA Budget battle: http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/10/news/economy/California_budget_brown/index.htm

From my viewpoint, CA much like a few other places are in a pretty bad position. Unlike some places, I don't think CA has the willpower to do what is needed to fix their issues, and as far as my understanding is, their budget that was just passed indeed passes the buck yet again and uses budgetary tricks to balance the budget, rather than reduce spending to a level that is needed. California was the 2nd worst state in terms of budget shortfall vs. revenues of any state in the US in 2011 (New Jersey was #1), and I don't quite think Jerry Brown is Chris Christie, so again...Another strike for CA.

CA may fix itself, but I don't see the climate being created for it right now - not when other states seem to be moving at a much more rapid pace to fix things.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kasz216 on 04 July 2011
Wonktonodi said:
mrstickball said:

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'm curious why you say CA is a death trap? Also why you think there could actually be any sort of collapse?


Look at everything they are getting rid of with the budget that's considered to be nowhere near enough by most financial experts.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_18407053

The REAL cuts they would need to make would be cuts that would REALLY enrage their own base.  I mean read how angry that guy is over peanuts.

They'd probably either need to abandon state employees or spanish speaking people.  (Also, 1 out of 4 adults lack basic english literacy?  REALLY?)