Five Californias, an alternative to "New California"

[Zarc]

As covered by another thread, there has been some coverage in the news and social media lately about this proposal to carve out a 51st state from California called "New California". I thought their idea was terrible, so I just wanted to present my own idea which I believe is better. (Because, apparently, I have nothing better to do.)

What makes their idea so terrible is how politicized it is. All they want to do is split up the state based on the politics of the day, during the most polarized era of American politics in recent decades. That's incredibly dumb. Though I'm not surprised given that their motivation is the "tyrannical" liberal Democratic government of California (they are obviously fringe right-wing lunatics). A state should not be set up based on the politics of the day, since politics is fluid, not to mention the fact that the people alive today won't be around to vote in 100 years. A State should be set up based on long-term considerations. Legitimate criteria to consider when splitting up State should be things like: geography, economic and social linkage, population density and distribution, settlement patterns, roads, commuting areas, communications etc.

A few years ago there was another poor example where California was split into six States, where the main objective of the proposal seemed to be for some tech billionaire to carve out an area for a "State of Silicon Valley" in order to dump the less wealthy areas of California and set up a regulatory regime serving the tech giants. Also misguided.

California (and Nevada) is the only place I've visited in the United States. I used to have family over there. I once took a road trip along the coast from San Francisco to Los Angeles, then to Las Vegas. It's a great place, in many ways, but not least in terms of size and population. So splitting it up does seem like a reasonable objective, albeit for a time in the future when the United States is less polarized than it is today. So, for when that day comes, here's my counter-proposal where I've taken into consideration the criteria I mentioned using sources such as combined statistical areas.

Let me know what you think! Is it better or worse?

State of Sacramento
Area: The Sacramento Valley, including the Sacramento metropolitan area, smaller metropolitan areas like Chico and Redding and a bunch of rural counties in the valley and surrounding areas.
Population: ~3.5 million
Capital: Chico
Largest metro: Sacramento

State of San Joaquin
Area: The San Joaquin Valley, including numerous medium-sized metropolitan areas like Fresno, Bakersfield and Stockton as well as rural counties in the valley and surrounding areas.
Population: ~4.2 million
Capital: Fresno
Largest metro: Fresno

State of Northern California
Area: Most of the Californian coast, a long strip of land between mountainous areas in the east and the Pacific Ocean in the west, including the San Francisco metropolitan area in the middle.
Population: ~8.3 million
Capital: Santa Rosa
Largest metro: San Fransisco

State of California
Area: The urban sprawl of the Los Angeles metropolitan area and areas in proximity along the coast and a mostly desolate area of land to the east.
Population: ~20 million
Capital: San Bernardino
Largest metro: Los Angeles

State of Southern California
Area: The San Diego metropolitan area, the rest of San Diego county as well as Imperial county.
Population: ~3.5 million
Capital: El Centro
Largest metro: San Diego



For those wanting to consider politics I would estimate that this would result in 6 Democratic Senators and 4 Republican Senators, meaning the same +2 advantage that Democrats have today. (2 from Northern California, 2 from California, 1 from Southern California and 1 from Sacramento).

[zenkai]

I just want to be able to call this Calfexit.

[Ivanstone]

I have a better idea. Merge the Carolina's, the Dakota's and the Virginia's. And then merge Oklahoma, Nebraska and Kansas. Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi. Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.

Come to think of it, the U.S. has too many states.

[Ivanstone]

Hehe How would you call the Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi super state?

Arroesan. Former guildmate who still lives down there. Figure he deserves the naming rights.

[Tennis]

I thought the idea was for Cali, Portland and Seattle to join Canada?

[Yvaelle]

Why is Fresno such a massive state in the middle of it? Fresno is a mess. It deserves nothing.
Kind of also true for Sacramento.
Every adjacent area of greater Los Angeles is individually bigger than Fresno or Sacramento.

Your proposal strips about 2/3rds of the resources and land of California and gives it to about 3% of the population.

All that San Diego gets is a desert and a border with Mexico. SoCal has a larger population than your Fresno and Sacramento states combined - that doesn't seem fair at all.

So why would NorCal, Cal, and SoCal in your drawing want to go through with this? They would give up a ton of power, most of their resources, and... no upside?
This appears to not be advantageous at all for 90%+ of the population of the today's (singular) California.
It would cripple the sixth largest economy (new separate regulations, industries, etc) in the world all so that some Republicans can take a Red bite out of today's California.

A far better solution to accomplish what you seem to want to accomplish (better political representation), would be to give proportional representation to virtually all elected offices. 51% of Californians vote Democrat in an election? Your Governor is a Dem. Your state parliament (or w/e) is 51% vs. 49% D/R, and the parties can decide who gets priority for a seat. Then change the US Senate to be proportional because the current system is nonsense. That way California has the Senatorial representation of ~66 Wyoming's: which would be fair.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought the idea was for Cali, Portland and Seattle to join Canada?

I'm okay with this

[Endus]

So why would NorCal, Cal, and SoCal in your drawing want to go through with this? They would give up a ton of power, most of their resources, and... no upside?
This appears to not be advantageous at all for 90%+ of the population of the today's (singular) California.
It would cripple the sixth largest economy (new separate regulations, industries, etc) in the world all so that some Republicans can take a Red bite out of today's California.

I think that's the biggest issue. The motivation behind this seems entirely down to "but we want more Red votes". If your voting bloc is too niche to get regular representation at the State level, that isn't an argument to divide the State, it means the democratic process works fine. The solution isn't to gerrymander voting blocs into their own mini-states. If anything, the USA should arguably engage in some merges. Do you really need two Dakotas?

[zEmini]

Considering population and economies, wouldn't it be Canada joining Cali, Portland and Seattle instead?

Well last I heard it was from Vancouver BC zipplined down to San Fransisco. It was called Cascadia I think.

But I really don't want California politics and tax nonsense to disrupt what I have here in Oregon

[God Save The King]

I don't understand the fetish with dividing California into more states.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that's the biggest issue. The motivation behind this seems entirely down to "but we want more Red votes". If your voting bloc is too niche to get regular representation at the State level, that isn't an argument to divide the State, it means the democratic process works fine. The solution isn't to gerrymander voting blocs into their own mini-states. If anything, the USA should arguably engage in some merges. Do you really need two Dakotas?

We need more Dakotas. Southeast Dakota, Southwest Dakota, Northwest Dakota, and Northeast Dakota.

On a more serious note, I think the country should be unified into a handful of states with similar interests. The Northeast from Pennsylvania to Maine, The Midwestern States, The Flyover States, The South, Southwest, and the West Coast + Hawaii. Not sure where to toss Alaska. (Also, I just made this up on the spot, I'm not familiar enough with each state to know if these are entirely accurate).

[Theodarzna]

I don't understand the fetish with dividing California into more states.

- - - Updated - - -



We need more Dakotas. Southeast Dakota, Southwest Dakota, Northwest Dakota, and Northeast Dakota.

Before it was because of Water, I think now its just politics.

[Mad_Murdock]

Never going to happen is the only correct answer. Cali will be one big happy family and they'll like it!

[Sormine]

We need more Dakotas. Southeast Dakota, Southwest Dakota, Northwest Dakota, and Northeast Dakota.

Petition to rename all non coastal states different variations of Dakota.

[Independent voter]

We should divide California into 13 new states

Californiaa
Californiab
Californiac
Californiad
Californiae
Californiaf
Californiag
Californiah
Californiai
Californiaj
Californiak
Californial

etc

[God Save The King]

Petition to rename all non coastal states different variations of Dakota.

I'm okay with this.

[Endus]

We should divide California into 13 new states

Californiaa
Californiab
Californiac
Californiad
Californiae
Californiaf
Californiag
Californiah
Californiai
Californiaj
Californiak
Californial

etc

it's more elegant if you just change the last letter. California, Californib, Californic, Californid, etc.

[Moralgy]

I don't understand the fetish with dividing California into more states.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much just politics I think. I am waiting to see how this ends up helping republicans since that is the only context I ever see "dividing California" to be in.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It’s a stupid idea for Alt-Righters and other such special folk who are better just off voting for Ron Paul 2020 and keep buying crypto currency.

[God Save The King]

Wait, I just noticed. You're proposing that the State of Sacramento's capital is not Sacramento? The current capital? Where literally all the infrastructure and buildings have already been constructed?

Naturally you'd also make the largest metropolitan area the capital of each state as well. It makes no sense to put the capital away from all the people. The happens today because overtime capitals shifted in population, but they almost always started in the biggest city.

[Afrospinach]

Considering population and economies, wouldn't it be Canada joining Cali, Portland and Seattle instead?

Precisely. If that were the situation I think they would be better of being their own country.

But I really don't want California politics and tax nonsense to disrupt what I have here in Oregon

I think that might be a lot of what drives this idea.

[Deleted]

No one in this or that one has brought up "New California Republic" or any other Fallout stuff. Impressive.