51st State: New California?

[Commodore]

Just saw this article about a possible 51st state:

With the reading of their own version of a Declaration of Independence, founders of the state of New California took the first steps to what they hope will eventually lead to statehood. CBS Sacramento reports they don't want to leave the United States, just California.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-california-declares-independence-from-rest-of-state/
So it sounds like conservatives in California are looking to part ways with the Democratic majority in California. And they are looking to do it by the book to make sure it's all nice and legal.

What do our Californian members think of this? Do you think this is a good idea? Also, what do you think about the territory they are claiming? It seems they want to separate the rural inland areas (the area they want to claim as New California) from the urban coastal areas.

EDIT: Also, if this is successful, what impact would the additon of two Republican senators and at least one Republican representative to Congress have on national politics?

 

[Birdjaguar]

It will fail.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Just like the endless series of "split California" efforts have in the past. Rural California has less economic viability than most states, and they are accustomed to higher standards than any other podunk state in the country. It just won't work.

Oh, and the idea that it would add Republicans to the house is inaccurate. California as it stands sends fourteen Republicans. The split wouldn't send fourteen to the new state, if it sent that many.

 

[Commodore]

Oh, and the idea that it would add Republicans to the house is inaccurate. California as it stands sends fourteen Republicans. The split wouldn't send fourteen to the new state, if it sent that many.

I'm not really up on the intricacies of California politics, which is a big reason I posted this thread to being with. Thanks for the info.

I think the biggest impact this could potentially have would be in presidential elections. If a 51st state is added, that adds more electoral votes. Now that I think about it, that may be the underlying motive behind this (or at least one of them). You know, attempt to weaken "liberal California" politically. Splitting California on what would essentially be ideological lines (if I am interpreting the article correctly) would take at least a few electoral votes away from California and add Republican safe state out west.

Rural California has less economic viability than most states, and they are accustomed to higher standards than any other podunk state in the country. It just won't work.

I saw in the comments on the article someone brought up the issue of water rights as a potential contentious issue between California and New California if this succeeds. I'm not really familiar at all with how water rights in California work, but it seems that would be a significant factor in the viability of this potential new state.\

Thoughts on that?

 

[FriendlyFire]

No to NCR
Yes to Institute !

 

[Zkribbler]

Just like the endless series of "split California" efforts have in the past.

Too right. About 10 years the was a push by stealth-Republicans to divide it in 5 states: LA, SF, and 3 rural states.
That would have changed Dems in the Senate fron 2 to 4; and GOP senators from 0 to 6.
No one fell for it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not really up on the intricacies of California politics, which is a big reason I posted this thread to being with. Thanks for the info.

I think the biggest impact this could potentially have would be in presidential elections. If a 51st state is added, that adds more electoral votes. Now that I think about it, that may be the underlying motive behind this (or at least one of them). You know, attempt to weaken "liberal California" politically. Splitting California on what would essentially be ideological lines (if I am interpreting the article correctly) would take at least a few electoral votes away from California and add Republican safe state out west.

It would add two senators, so two electoral votes. The total in the house is not changed. 435 is the number, divided among the states by population with every state having at least one. Dividing them up among more states doesn't change the total. It would split California's block of electoral votes, with the bigger block going to the populous "old" California. But truthfully I don't think this new California would be all that safe for the Republicans. They are trying to take too much of the populated areas. The only areas that are "majority Republican" are the areas that have hardly any people in them.

 

[Berzerker]

I saw in the comments on the article someone brought up the issue of water rights as a potential contentious issue between California and New California if this succeeds. I'm not really familiar at all with how water rights in California work, but it seems that would be a significant factor in the viability of this potential new state.\

Thoughts on that?

SoCal wants everyone else's water, thats how it works

 

[Silurian]

Where does Kansas get its water from?

 

[Zkribbler]

Can we get rid of the Russian bear and red star, please? How 'bout something a little more Yankee-Doodlish?

 

[Broken_Erika]

You don't like Chernobyl-Bear?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I would not be surprised one bit if this effort, as with the past split-California efforts, is bankrolled by the Russians. The last ballot initiative was literally paid for by the Russians and the guy who ran the initiative is (IIRC), under investigation for it.


This is just another stupid attempt to stir the pot that no one actually wants and would go nowhere.


We could do a whole thread on the water question though.

 

[Cutlass]

The biggest difference to national politics is the addition of 2 senators. Which would almost certainly be Republicans, for the foreseeable future.

I see articles from time to time in which various conservatives consider strategies to not live where they feel their voice is not part of the political process. Many move to red states as a result of this, which has the effect of further polarizing American politics as a whole. It's very unhealthy.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The biggest difference to national politics is the addition of 2 senators. Which would almost certainly be Republicans, for the foreseeable future.

I see articles from time to time in which various conservatives consider strategies to not live where they feel their voice is not part of the political process. Many move to red states as a result of this, which has the effect of further polarizing American politics as a whole. It's very unhealthy.

To be fair it goes the other way too. Moving to California was a personal dream I worked toward for almost a decade and it was only mostly about jobs. The rest of my motivation was to get to a liberal state and out of Missouri/Southern Illinois.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The biggest difference to national politics is the addition of 2 senators. Which would almost certainly be Republicans, for the foreseeable future.

I see articles from time to time in which various conservatives consider strategies to not live where they feel their voice is not part of the political process. Many move to red states as a result of this, which has the effect of further polarizing American politics as a whole. It's very unhealthy.

Unhealthy for the US, maybe not for all the USians. There was a time when Californians who mentioned the idea of secession were outermost fringe crazies and the idea was met with "there is no way anyone is going anywhere" by the rest of the country. Now enough conservatives have so concentrated themselves in the Idiot States of America that the widespread response is "good, and take all the other economically viable states that we depend on with you." Peacefully dissolving the union and letting the conservatives drown in their own stupidity is starting to look almost possible.

 

[civvver]

Just like the endless series of "split California" efforts have in the past. Rural California has less economic viability than most states, and they are accustomed to higher standards than any other podunk state in the country. It just won't work.

Oh, and the idea that it would add Republicans to the house is inaccurate. California as it stands sends fourteen Republicans. The split wouldn't send fourteen to the new state, if it sent that many.

Yeah but if they charge the southern areas an arm and a leg for their water rights do they need much economic viability?

Anyway it's not going to work regardless. It'll be against the state's constitution or something.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, Toronto has often been quoted to want to form their own province, since they essentially subsidize the rest of the province. I believe I have read similar ideas for New York City and several other large cities (Chicago?)

It's not surprising, but does California's constitution (or whatever y'all got) allow for parts of the state to secede? Or would this lead to a Californian civil war? Or just talk

 

[Cheetah]

Iirc, there's nothing impossible about splitting off and creating a new state.

It just needs the approval of the new state in question (a referendum or election, I'd assume), the approval of the existing state (the representatives, plus maybe a referendum), and the US Congress. Most likely a qualified majority at that. In other words: Easy as splitting atoms.

I saw in the comments on the article someone brought up the issue of water rights as a potential contentious issue between California and New California if this succeeds. I'm not really familiar at all with how water rights in California work, but it seems that would be a significant factor in the viability of this potential new state.\

Thoughts on that?

The way I've understood it, and bear in mind that I'm not a Californian, is that the water rights go something like this:

• 80% of the water goes to the farmers in California
• 40% of the water goes to private houses for watering lawns and filling pools
• 35% of the water goes to industrial use
• 27% is used for drinking water
• 63% is needed by nature in California and Nevada to maintain the water table and keep vegetation alive
• 25% is used to bottle up water and soda to sell across the country

Which, if my calculations are correct, would leave about 12% left which people are finding new innovative ways of utilizing.

We were talking about the future viability of California as a state, yes?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah but if they charge the southern areas an arm and a leg for their water rights do they need much economic viability?

Anyway it's not going to work regardless. It'll be against the state's constitution or something.

Truth is that the "water problem" in California revolves around the rural areas having been granted "first right" waaaaaaaay back in California history, and no renegotiations being allowed to be forced upon them. Splitting the state would effectively force that issue open, for the benefit of everyone other than the farmers. For those unfamiliar, "first right" means that in times of drought there is no incentive for conservation in the rural areas, because they are not affected. The shortage comes "off the top," which is not their water. So, they don't conserve, period. In fact the "conservatives" in rural California have an active movement to "use it all." They want people in their regions to use every last drop of their allotted water even if they just dump it on the ground, so the water available for the rest of us will be squeezed from the top by the drought and from below by their waste.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I have to say that one nice change about living in California is that all the Love Jesus and Keep Your Baby billboards in the rural areas have been replaced with much less vulgar IT'S OUR WATER **** OFF billboards.