Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

California State Breakup Update

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by citygator, Jun 13, 2018.

  1. GatorBen

    GatorBen Premium Member

    5,587
    728
    563
    Apr 9, 2007
    I’m okay with letting California break into three separate pieces as long as we give at least two of the three pieces (and maybe all three of them) away and let them be someone else’s crazy promptly after doing so. :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 5
  2. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 VIP Member

    60,022
    8,829
    2,358
    Apr 3, 2007
    Not happening... 17% approval means it's not going anywhere fast.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
  3. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 VIP Member

    60,022
    8,829
    2,358
    Apr 3, 2007
    Interesting... the third Party is treated much like the LGBTQ people are being treated in Russia.
     
  4. citygator

    citygator Premium Member

    2,791
    506
    423
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    I like the idea. Potential for a few more dem senators but more electoral votes maybe for Presidential republicans?
    2 new capital cities? Los Angles and San Francisco?

    New flag replacements, maps, etc will drive the economic sector.

    All new best of state lists.

    Better team rivalries are cross state.
     
  5. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    679
    149
    268
    Dec 31, 2016
    Will this happen? I'm certainly not holding my breath.

    The US Constitution Article IV Section 3 Clause 1

    Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,030
    784
    408
    Sep 14, 2008
    I wish I was a Democrat so I could fly out there and illegally vote for this legally. ;)
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  7. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    Its possible. I think the ballot measure would be one of the more difficult hurdles. If it passes, the state legislature could get behind it pretty easily (if you are a So Cal state rep, the travel to Sacramento is insane), plus it would theoretically have broad support within the state if it were to pass, so you'd probably side with public opinion. Of course Congress would be the most difficult hurdle, particularly if its controlled by Republicans, but if the Dems gained a majority and really wanted to play hardball to expand their political power in this age of partisanship, its not inconceivable. Make PR a state, DC a state, make 3 or more Californias. Boom, you've got a bunch of new Democratic senators and congressmen. They really should do it, but they probably wont, not while people like Schumer and Pelosi are leading the party.
     
  8. Spurffelbow833

    Spurffelbow833 GC Hall of Fame

    8,770
    517
    623
    Jan 9, 2009
    Slavery made the republic dysfunctional and as a result, we haven't been a republic since the mid-19th century. We are now a hybrid of an oligarchy and an empire.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. GatorBen

    GatorBen Premium Member

    5,587
    728
    563
    Apr 9, 2007
    Hey, Republicans can play this game too. Enjoy dealing with the Senators from the East and West Dakotas, the states of Missis and Sippi, New Wyoming (where one out of every 25 people serves in Congress!), etc.

    ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    Yeah, I mean if you want to divide up tiny ass states with like 2-3 congressman to get 1 each, that's a plan. I mean, I might have gone with Texas, but that would probably backfire for Republicans eventually. :)
     
  11. GatorBen

    GatorBen Premium Member

    5,587
    728
    563
    Apr 9, 2007
    We've got a fixed number of congressmen, and at least every state has to have one. If I can create enough tiny ass states to use up House seats one at a time, I'm eventually going to really dilute the power of the vote in large, populous areas.
     
  12. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    63,696
    8,869
    2,743
    Apr 3, 2007
    Miami, OK
    435 states, 435 House Reps, and 870 Senators, wouldn't that be fun.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    So split Wyoming like 20 ways?
     
  14. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    509
    92
    278
    Jun 14, 2014
    At the time the constitution was adopted, the states were relatively close in size, with the largest (Virginia) being just over 10 times the size of the smallest (Delaware). Most of the country was also rural, with only 4 million people total as of the 1790 census (and only about 800,000 people qualified to vote).

    These days, California is close to 70 times the size of Wyoming. Texas is 50x, Florida and New York 35x, mostly due to major population centers. Even middling states like Oklahoma, Lousiana, and Alabama dwarf the smallest states. The dynamic is just an order of magnitude different than it was at the founding.

    We've been relatively lucky in that the party splits have fallen in such a way that the majority party typically commands the majority or near-majority of the population. But if that changes at some point, and we see the party in power consistently losing the popular vote by significant margins, I think we will see a serious constitutional crisis. A democracy without the consent of the majority of the governed is inherently unstable, no matter the intent behind valuing one citizen's voice above another's.
     
  15. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,030
    784
    408
    Sep 14, 2008
    I'm not sure how we would see a constitutional crisis. There isn't really any confusion over the electoral college. People could push for an amendment, but that's unlikely to pass if more than 1/4 of the states are benefitting from the status quo. There is already an effort to bypass the EC through state legislation that awards the electors to the popular vote winner, but that's unlikely to get enough support to go into effect either. Other than that, what do they do? I guess California could secede or something. Not sure that will go over well with the strict restrictions on AR-15s and lower levels of gun ownership there. I guess they could throw lattes and iphones at the federal troops.
     
  16. wgbgator

    wgbgator Very Stable Genius Premium Member

    Apr 19, 2007
    Geo-hell
    I mean maybe not, but our claims at being even remotely democratic would be hollow. I cant imagine prolonged minority rule would be particularly harmonious and wouldn't produce a fair amount of political extremism, even if the system didn't collapse. We'd basically be Russia, except way less homogenous.
     
  17. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    509
    92
    278
    Jun 14, 2014
    Mass civil unrest, if supported by a significant popular majority and organized at the state level, would destroy federal government's ability to assert its de jure authority. 35% of the country would not be able to keep the remaining 65% under their thumb long term by pointing to the Constitution's amendment clause. Ultimately, they would either need to accept an amendment or watch impotently as states broke off.

    There wasn't any confusion over King John's authority, either. But he signed the magna carta all the same, because the only other option was to watch his kingdom fall apart. People here may accept an outcome contrary to the will of the people on the odd occasion. But if it starts happening consistently and to the point that not even a sizable supermajority is enough to win elections, the ensuing unrest will lead to either an amendment or a dissolution of the union.
     
  18. GatorBen

    GatorBen Premium Member

    5,587
    728
    563
    Apr 9, 2007
    Not sure that would be a problem. Conservatives who would like to be rid of the lunacy might be the biggest supporters of the idea of Calexit.
     
  19. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    509
    92
    278
    Jun 14, 2014
    Even that scenario could lead to a crisis in the other direction. Relegated to the perpetual minority, the remaining liberal states would have all the incentive in the world to either join California or break off on their own. Perhaps then leading to reconciliation as fly over country realizes that liberal lunacy is a small price to pay for liberal money.
     
  20. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,030
    784
    408
    Sep 14, 2008
    There wasn't any confusion over Abe Lincoln's authority either and breaking off didn't work so well for the south. Secession was a settled issue after that. I have been told in all the second amendment threads that AR-15s are useless against our modern military as well.

    I guess I would find it hard to believe that a 65% popular majority would consistently lose EC elections as well. Hillary's popular vote margin was the highest in history and was only a 2% difference. Either you have populous states like Cali and NY voting overwhelmingly Democratic (like 90%) while the rest of the country is more balanced, so they might be out of step with everyone else. Or if the majority was more spread out, you should have more states turning blue.