There is no split coming. This measure will lose by a margin greater than 10 million votes.

There is no significant cultural division between the Bay Area, LA, OC or San Diego, and not much in between with the coastal counties, nor the attached regions like Napa, Sonoma, or even Sacramento, Modesto, Fresno, Riverside, and San Bernadino. We are all pretty much attached.

This entire scheme is the idiocy of a desperate Republican think tank type who is a few decades behind the demographic curves. It has been a very long time since OC and SD counties were white majority. This is a stupid top down idea of an out of touch rich elitist, which will be rejected by the common people. It makes no sense and has nothing going for it. It has no popular or social context for support.

A greater than ten million vote margin.

**********************************

Now there is a ground up movement that has deep roots (since at least 1940) and could actually go somewhere called NorthState or Jefferson. It's exact alignment is not exactly fixed, and should it solidify the boundaries would likely be a bit different than the map in the article. But on balance the demographic and size result would likely be similar
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html

The demographics are enlightening:
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-th...on-census/

Jefferson: 1,738,337 people, 73% White
California*: 38,071,356 people 37% White

* California numbers not counting Jefferson (numbers taken from Jan 1, 2018 census estimate; total population was 39,809,693, but now maybe >40m as I write)

The percentage White in non-Jefferson California, is why that idiot think tank split is doomed. Goofy stuff.

On the other hand I take Jefferson much more seriously, and a real possibility in the coming decade or two, with real grievances and cultural differences. There is not much push back from those of us not in the North State to this. If they want to go, then go, just so long as we keep our water rights from the Sacramento River Valley System (they would need us to pay for the Dams). But I'm not sure they are a strong majority in their own counties, more like a plurality (think the Scottish or Quebec Independence movements). But they have a real movement, and I could see a "Jefferson" political party becoming dominant in those counties much like SNP in Scotland, aligned nationally mostly with the GOP (like the SNP is mostly with Labor in the UK). The reason it's ground up, not think tank top down.

Come on, there's a pretty sizable cultural split between NorCal and SoCal. It's a relatively intense rivalry.

Jefferson was very close to happening, then Pearl Harbor happened. The cultural split s not North-South, but coastal vs inland.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-14-2018 02:05 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

Pretty much.

(06-13-2018 07:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 06:48 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Don’t think it will fly. Ca and No Ca. Will be liberal enclaves, leaving SoCal to the conservatives, thus 2 more Dem Senate seats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So Cal would be a swing state. No way the Senate approves it.
No way anybody in No. California votes for being tied to San Francisco in a split.

Doesnt matter in the slightest how the vote goes. The current state would still need the permission of the US Congress to do this.

Interesting that it is 'on the ballot', but is it really smart to launch yourself at concrete barriers at full speed? Constitution, Article 4, Section 3......

(06-14-2018 03:08 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Come on, there's a pretty sizable cultural split between NorCal and SoCal. It's a relatively intense rivalry.

No there really isn't much difference. Bay Area and San Diego share an affinity with each other. Sacramento is the overflow of the Bay Area economic engine and now becoming part of it. The Wine industry is tied to the elites of the cities (who often purchase and run wineries). The North-South sports divide is just that, a team rooting divide. We have the same driving culture, the same water and tax concerns, and our ethnic make up is pretty much the same from San Diego to Marin. Everywhere, except the North State, a very high percentage of people of immigrants from other states or countries. We are far more similar than different. Look at the electoral map, it's pretty solid blue in the entire region.

Further attitudes and expectations are similar in most of the populated zones of the state. This will be a blowout rejection, only a few wacko Republicans who wish for the 1980s when California was still majority White will vote for this. Note, Whites make up barely 40% of the electorate, and at least 1/3rd of them are Democrats. Every year those truly disgruntled move into the Jefferson region or out of the State altogether, while more immigrants from the educated classes in the US or from overseas or those from south of the border come into the state.

People's view of California seems to be at least a generation out of date here.

Pretty sure this needs to be approved by Congress “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 Congreas”

I think I read some where that Texas has some exception

(06-14-2018 09:27 PM)IAH Wrote:  Pretty sure this needs to be approved by Congress “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 Congreas”

I think I read some where that Texas has some exception

Considering it would add 4 new seats to the Senate, it would require congressional approval. Of course, North Dakota would then have to split into 3 states to offset those.

(06-15-2018 08:00 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 09:27 PM)IAH Wrote:  Pretty sure this needs to be approved by Congress “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 Congreas”

I think I read some where that Texas has some exception

Considering it would add 4 new seats to the Senate, it would require congressional approval. Of course, North Dakota would then have to split into 3 states to offset those.

When Texas was admitted into the Union, the 'Congressional acceptance' (required by Article 4 mentioned previously) gives an unambiguous power to Texas to split. In other words, Texas was (and still is) pre-approved by Congress for this.

In the 'normal' case of a split, the State has to do its approval thing, then the Congress approves. For Texas, the only hurdle (given the way in which the Congressional approval was passed way back then) would be internal.

The prong for congressional approval is a non-issue for the instance of Texas seeking to break itself up.

(06-15-2018 02:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 08:00 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(06-14-2018 09:27 PM)IAH Wrote:  Pretty sure this needs to be approved by Congress “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 Congreas”

I think I read some where that Texas has some exception

Considering it would add 4 new seats to the Senate, it would require congressional approval. Of course, North Dakota would then have to split into 3 states to offset those.

When Texas was admitted into the Union, the 'Congressional acceptance' (required by Article 4 mentioned previously) gives an unambiguous power to Texas to split. In other words, Texas was (and still is) pre-approved by Congress for this.

In the 'normal' case of a split, the State has to do its approval thing, then the Congress approves. For Texas, the only hurdle (given the way in which the Congressional approval was passed way back then) would be internal.

The prong for congressional approval is a non-issue for the instance of Texas seeking to break itself up.

Thanks for the explanation

Texas was given the exception because it was once a sovereign nation (pfft). Anywho...it is allowed to form up to 6 States, within it's own borders. Via the article cited above and via the Articles of Reconstruction, no other State is allowed to do so just because they want to.