I know a lot of people in Nothern California who would support splitting off.
The problem with that is that there is no consensus on what should become the new "Alta California" as it has been referred.
Politically, Southern California would fight any secession because it would be left without most of its water.
Some people who want "Alta California" want it to be a right-wing rural state that leaves the San Francisco Bay Area in Southern California, which would make them go nuts. A Northern California that simply put's the northern boundaries of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernadino Counties, would make it even more the "left coast", which upsets rural areas of Northern California.
California could be split into three states, Northern, Central and Southern California.
The biggest change in California is that the political divisions are no longer Northern vs. Southern California. It's Coastal versus Inland California. The more populous coastal areas vote Democratic and it's more rural and ex-urban inland areas are becoming more conservative. In that sense, California is becoming more like it's left-coast bretheren of Oregon and Washington States. A more populous Coastal half outvotes the more conservative less populous inland half.
It's politically impossible, but I think California could be 10 states of 4 million each. Combining less populous states together and dividing more populous states will allow for more urban representation in the Senate and more fair representation overall. Do we really need two Dakotas? (I'm sure some poster will explain why we do and how they are different.)
California's problem also is that is has a legislature for a small state with only 80 assembly members for 30 million people. The whole legislative structure here needs to be reborn. Perhaps a unicameral proportionally elected legislature of 200 members or something. California needs a Constitutional Convention. But that's for a whole another blog I guess.
No Dirty Tricks!
There is an effort underway by conservatives to split up California's electoral votes. This would dilute the power of California to have a say in who becomes president and it would give an unfair advantage to Republicans.
The Courage Campaign has launched a Campaign against this effort called "No Dirty Tricks". Republicans have been finding ways to cheat for years. The time has come for us to let them know that we're going to stand up.
Please consider chipping in $20 to save 20 electoral votes from being stolen by Republicans.
Below, Rick Jacobs, Chair of the Courage Campaign explains the importance of this effort.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
In 2004 there was a movement to split up Colorado's electoral vote proportionally but it failed as the California plan will as well.
Actually, it is not a bad idea if all states were forced to do it because it would make the electoral vote closer to the popular vote. But it is inherently unfair if only some states do it.
On another issue, it is time that California should consider breaking into two states because it is getting so populous that it is becoming ungovernable.
They do have a point about large minority groups in large states getting their votes silenced by the Winner-Take-All system we now have.
Not a big point but two smaller states already do this, so Cali wouldn't be the only one.
As for an abandonment of the electoral college altogether and the creation of a national popular vote would be a bad idea, IMHO.
I think the electoral college is a key element in the balance of powers between the large and small states. Just like the Senate. If we abandon it, we might as well stop calling our system of govenment Federal and declare it Unitary.
The Civil War is over. It's not about balancing the powers of "states" anymore. In the 21st Century, it's about every citizen having equality. Every citizen in every state should have the same power, influence and representation in electing the President. The only way that is accomplished is by direct popular vote.
Less populous states already get widely disproportionate power, influence and representation in the U.S. Senate, and would still continue to do so if and when the Electoral College is eliminated.
Eliminating the Electoral College isn't about the "states". It's about equality of citizenship.
If conservatives are worried that Presidential candidates might actually campaign in the Los Angeles, Dallas, New York, Chicago metropolitan reasons, a.k.a., where the American people actually live, instead of campaigning on the merits of selling ethanol in Podunksville, Iowa, that's just too damn bad for conservatives.
We haven't been a rural nation in over 100 years and we shouldn't have our 21st Century elections distorted by a mistake that was created in the 19th Century to preserve the power and influence of "slave" states.
This isn't going to happen.
First, it hasn't made the ballot yet. No major sponsor has stepped up to the plate to put up the cash to finance the signature gatherers. It'll take a few million for that.
Second, there is about a 8-9 point Democratic voter registration advantage. The Independent vote is also against this one by substantial margins.
Third, all the major Dems in the state have come out against this one already. DiFi, Boxer, Jerry Brown, are leading the pack against it. Even Arnold has kept quiet about it and is probably unlikely to go for it.
Fourth, once the advertising against it gets really going, assuming it makes it to the ballot, this thing is finished. TV is the only way to make or break initiatives out here and again, the Dems and Independents are against it. The last Dem candidate for governor, Steve Westly spent $37 million in the primary -- and lost.
Fifth, despite the illusion of being airheads, Californians generally get it right. This GOP division by gerrymandered district is inherently unfair. A candidate could win the most electoral votes, yet still be behind in the popular vote. It merely trades one bad system for another.
It's not going to happen.
The Republicans are at it again with their nefarious machinations to usurp the democratic choice of the Californians by weakening its current electoral process in preference of one that lends itself to the G.O.P. take-over of the state. The ease with which they brought down a Democratic governor Davis has convinced them that a major effort such as this one can be pulled off just as easily. With their plummeting political fortunes indisputable and in evidence across the nation, for them the undermining of Democratic strength in this premier state with the hope to stop their bleeding has never been as urgent. Thus it is equally imperative, if not more so, for the Progressive movement, not just the Democratic Party( which ofcource is currently doing its best to relegate itself to irrelevancy) to aggressively engage the conearvative in the battle for the state which it seems will be a mother of all battles. Let's all bear it in mind, then, that what before us seems to be a G.O.P. in disaray and in reteat is in fact nothing short of a tactical retreat to gather strength for the next attack.
better idea:
North California and South California.
signed,
future North California resident
Forget the stupid electoral vote completely. It's time for a straight popular vote! Anything else is asinine. If the popular vote was in effect in 2000, Al Gore would be the President and we probably would not be stuck in Iraq!
Probably?
It is not certain that Gore would have won the popular vote in 2000 if it was known from the outset that the popular vote would decide the election.
Turnout was depressed in states such as Texas, southern and mountain west states that Bush was sure to win because voting did not seem important. At the same time Democratic voter turnout increased in competitive states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Under a popular vote system, the campaigns would have been run differently by both candidates and who knows what would have happened.
This would be a good idea but only if it were done by every state. California and other states should not do this unilaterally.
It needs to be admitted that this isn't a bad idea in the abstract; popular-vote election of the President is a desirable goal and assignment of electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in each state is a step in that direction. Not, however, if it's done unilaterally and only in California. In general, low-population red states are giving the GOP an electoral advantage from the two extra votes they get for their Senators and high-population blue states are giving the Democrats one with their winner-take-all rules. The advantages, more or less, cancel.
If ALL states simultaneously went to a system of electoral votes proportional to the popular vote AND also were given a number of electoral votes proportional to their population size only, that would be a step toward fairness. Doing the first part of that in only one state is not.
Of course, if the GOP would agree to having a few other states do the same thing for this election, say Indiana, Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, and Florida ... Oh, and Texas.
If I read your response correctly, you think that it is up to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to "agree" to a system of voting. Ugh. Tell me that you really don't believe that.
This initiative is not a "dirty trick." Its an option. Not unlike recalling Gov. Davis. California can vote for it, or against it. Let the citizens decide, not the political parties.
Yeah, Giglawyer, just like the citizens decided in the last two Presidential elections.
Good Heavens, you're right! Why should Democrats and Republicans "agree" to a system of voting? Especially when Republicans have Diebold, Kathryn Harris, Karl Rove, the bribetakers on the Supreme Court, "caging" and all the other wonderful electoral aids to get them past the uncomfortable truth that most voters don't seem to like them very much. Why not just abolish the Electoral College altogether and go to a direct one-man one-vote electoral process? Why not put that on the ballot in every state? Let the people decide!
(And hell, if you decide they decided wrong, that's what Diebold, etc., are for!)
Giglawyer: "you think that it is up to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to "agree" to a system of voting. Ugh."
No, I think that's the only way it's likely to happen. I'd like nothing better than a mass nonpartisan movement that resulted in a constitutional amendment giving us popular vote election of the President. Unfortunately, now and for the foreseeable future, political change is in the hands of the two dominate parties.
I suppose the initiative isn't a "dirty trick" in the sense that it isn't illegal, but it does seem to me that having California and only California do this at the current time violates the sense of fairness that most of us think is basic to our system. (Our faith is being eroded pretty badly by political game-playing like this. When our faith is gone, so will be the United States of America.)
Are you claiming that it is not the Republican Party that originated and is pushing this initiative?
I think the Politicians are elected to decide these sort of things. If they don't want to do their job, find some one else to do it. Special referendums cost money!
I live in California, and I would support this if it were done by a Split-Up Coalition, a mirror image of the Electoral College Integrity Coalition or whatever it's called.
in other words, California should only do this if every other heavily populated state does this.
Loading comments…
Until last month, Jason Burnett was a high-ranking political appointee at...
Jenny McCarthy struts her stuff in a sexy black swimsuit...
The Hill reports that Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman is considering legislation that would...
NEW YORK - Sex crime has a telltale signature, even when those directing the outrages are some...
Barack Obama should not move, or even appear to be moving, toward right-wing views...
John McCain, aided and abetted by his loving protectors in...
Verne Troyer's ex-girlfriend and sex tape co-star Ranae Shrider spoke to News Of The World about...
Lara Logan is pregnant and will marry the father of her baby, Joe Burkett, the...
For months, a sense of dread has been percolating within Republican circles over potentially...
"Gracefulness has been defined as the outward expression of the inward harmony of the soul," wrote...
In the wake of Barack Obama's recent perceived move to the center,...
One coffee drinker's bad news is another coffee drinker's good news,...
Posted September 3, 2007 | 07:16 PM (EST)