Cebu_4_2
28th October 2017, 05:28 PM
What The USA Can Expect If Calexit Ever Happens, in One Cartoon October 28, 2017 By TFPP Writer (http://thefederalistpapers.org/author/memes)
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/usa-can-expect-calexit-ever-happens-one-cartoon?utm_source=FBLC&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=LC
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/imageedit_1418_8076974041-1.jpg
“Calexit,” the proposal for the hopelessly-left-wing state of California to secede from the United States, has long been a pipe dream of people on both sides, liberals for fantasies of crafting their perfect utopia and conservatives for keeping those lunatics from imposing their madness on the rest of the country.
There have a handful of proposals over the years to make it happen, but none have ever gotten off the ground. But what about dividing it into three new states within the Union?
ABC7 Los Angeles has the scoop (http://abc7.com/politics/plan-to-divide-california-into-3-parts-clears-first-hurdle/2575034/):
The plan is being funded by Bay Area tech billionaire Tim Draper, who previously funded a similar proposal back in 2014 to divide the state up into sections.
That plan failed.
Draper argues that citizens would be better served by three smaller state governments, rather than one large one.
The three-way split goes like this: Northern California would include the Bay Area all the way to the Oregon border, Southern California would begin in Fresno and cover most of the southern state.
A new California would begin in Los Angeles county and cover most of the coastal areas.
Opponents say the plan would create chaos.
“Creating three new governments three new legislatures, three new governors and then having to disrupt what we have as a state all our prison systems, our higher education systems,” said political analyst Steven Maviglio. “I think diversity is what makes California great and this would actually ruin it.”
It remains to be seen whether voters of the state would go for it, and even if they did, whether Congress lets them would be another matter entirely. Just like the admission of new states into America, the division of an existing state is a federal concern because it would impact the composition of the Senate and the fate of presidential elections.
So what would the political impact of this change be? Look at this map of the proposed new states, from the ABC7 report:
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SplitCalifornia.jpg (http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SplitCalifornia.jpg)
Compare that to this map of California’s 2016 election results, courtesy of Politico (https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/california/):
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/California2016.png (http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/California2016.png)
The House of Representatives would be basically unchanged, with the possible exception of some district redrawing along the new borders. The Senate would get four new Senators, meaning a few new Republicans but not necessarily enough to outnumber new Democrats.
The biggest change, of course, would be that rather than all 55 of California’s electoral votes now being a foregone conclusion for the Dems (which it’s been ever since mass immigration transformed the state that gave us Ronald Reagan into a permanent leftist stronghold), some of those would now go to the Republican presidential candidate. Depending on where they live, Californians’ votes would actually potentially matter, and even if the GOP lost the redder states in a future election, the nominee would be no worse off electorally than he is under the current system.
With all that in mind, how receptive would the national parties be to all of this? My guess is “not very.” The GOP is, of course, frustratingly risk-averse and hopelessly infatuated with the status quo, so don’t expect them to get on board regardless of whether it’s a good idea or not. As for the Democrats, while the possibility of a few more senators is no doubt tempting, my sense is that they wouldn’t dare trade that for their existing presidential advantage.
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/usa-can-expect-calexit-ever-happens-one-cartoon?utm_source=FBLC&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=LC
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/imageedit_1418_8076974041-1.jpg
“Calexit,” the proposal for the hopelessly-left-wing state of California to secede from the United States, has long been a pipe dream of people on both sides, liberals for fantasies of crafting their perfect utopia and conservatives for keeping those lunatics from imposing their madness on the rest of the country.
There have a handful of proposals over the years to make it happen, but none have ever gotten off the ground. But what about dividing it into three new states within the Union?
ABC7 Los Angeles has the scoop (http://abc7.com/politics/plan-to-divide-california-into-3-parts-clears-first-hurdle/2575034/):
The plan is being funded by Bay Area tech billionaire Tim Draper, who previously funded a similar proposal back in 2014 to divide the state up into sections.
That plan failed.
Draper argues that citizens would be better served by three smaller state governments, rather than one large one.
The three-way split goes like this: Northern California would include the Bay Area all the way to the Oregon border, Southern California would begin in Fresno and cover most of the southern state.
A new California would begin in Los Angeles county and cover most of the coastal areas.
Opponents say the plan would create chaos.
“Creating three new governments three new legislatures, three new governors and then having to disrupt what we have as a state all our prison systems, our higher education systems,” said political analyst Steven Maviglio. “I think diversity is what makes California great and this would actually ruin it.”
It remains to be seen whether voters of the state would go for it, and even if they did, whether Congress lets them would be another matter entirely. Just like the admission of new states into America, the division of an existing state is a federal concern because it would impact the composition of the Senate and the fate of presidential elections.
So what would the political impact of this change be? Look at this map of the proposed new states, from the ABC7 report:
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SplitCalifornia.jpg (http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SplitCalifornia.jpg)
Compare that to this map of California’s 2016 election results, courtesy of Politico (https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/california/):
http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/California2016.png (http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/California2016.png)
The House of Representatives would be basically unchanged, with the possible exception of some district redrawing along the new borders. The Senate would get four new Senators, meaning a few new Republicans but not necessarily enough to outnumber new Democrats.
The biggest change, of course, would be that rather than all 55 of California’s electoral votes now being a foregone conclusion for the Dems (which it’s been ever since mass immigration transformed the state that gave us Ronald Reagan into a permanent leftist stronghold), some of those would now go to the Republican presidential candidate. Depending on where they live, Californians’ votes would actually potentially matter, and even if the GOP lost the redder states in a future election, the nominee would be no worse off electorally than he is under the current system.
With all that in mind, how receptive would the national parties be to all of this? My guess is “not very.” The GOP is, of course, frustratingly risk-averse and hopelessly infatuated with the status quo, so don’t expect them to get on board regardless of whether it’s a good idea or not. As for the Democrats, while the possibility of a few more senators is no doubt tempting, my sense is that they wouldn’t dare trade that for their existing presidential advantage.