Five Californias, an alternative to "New California"

[Paranoid Android]

Do we need multiple threads created within days of each other for California.

Alt-Righters have a Heart-On for California.

As someone stated lets combine the Dakota's, Carolinas and oh btw they only get 2 Senators. Then let's divide Florida into Northern and Southern. Then lets make a state of Austin and Houston (yes they get two Senators).

[araine]

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

Shithole, comes to mind with all the racists down there

[God Save The King]

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.

It helps them secure the Presidential election more easily. Due to how electoral college votes (ECVs) are allocated, smaller states have much more power than larger states, at least vote per vote. This is because of the guaranteed 3 votes that all states get. Add in the right leaning tendencies of rural voters (including california rural voters), you'd see Republicans become more competitive in the west.

Currently, California's massive 55 ECVs go to the Democratic candidate. If we broke the state up in this manor, you'd make about ~20 ECVs competitive.

California is what gives the Democrats such a strong edge.

Also, California, due to its power & influence, is able to drive change on a larger scale. If you break apart the state, it loses a lot of its national and international power. As an example, California has the highest smog requirements in the country for cars. For a while, car manufacturers tried to make California cars, and 49 state cars. Eventually they realized it was too expensive, so they shifted to 50 state emission.

If it was a small state like Vermont that did that, car companies would just stop selling to that state. But when it's the richest state, and around 15% of the population, they had no real choice.

[araine]

Do we need multiple threads created within days of each other for California.

Alt-Righters have a Heart-On for California.

As someone stated lets combine the Dakota's, Carolinas and oh btw they only get 2 Senators. Then let's divide Florida into Northern and Southern. Then lets make a state of Austin and Houston (yes they get two Senators).

Right wingers are furious that they dont have any access to those 55 electoral votes from California, it has been a wet dream for right wingers to try to break up california so they get a share of those votes

[spanishninja]

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

heh, rappers already pronounce it cali-forn-i-a.

[Molis]

It helps them secure the Presidential election more easily. Due to the electoral college, and the tendency of rural voters, small states have more voting power in the EC than larger states, and they favor the Republicans.

Currently, California's massive 55 ECVs go to the Democratic candidate. If we broke the state up in this manor, you'd make about ~20 ECVs competitive.

California is what gives the Democrats such a strong edge.

Just need another California actor to run for pres and Cali will go back to red.

[God Save The King]

As someone stated lets combine the Dakota's, Carolinas and oh btw they only get 2 Senators. Then let's divide Florida into Northern and Southern. Then lets make a state of Austin and Houston (yes they get two Senators).

Better yet, just make senators proportional. Problem solved.

Wyoming's 500k doesn't need the same power as California's 40 million.

- - - Updated - - -

Just need another California actor to run for pres and Cali will go back to red.

Reagan colored the country red, and was greatly helped by the horrible efforts from the Democrats. It was also a Republican stronghold from Johnson to Clinton.

[Paranoid Android]

Right wingers are furious that they dont have any access to those 55 electoral votes from California, it has been a wet dream for right wingers to try to break up california so they get a share of those votes

Well Republicans are afraid of losing places that are becoming more brown. Texas was close past election. Now I have no fantasy of Texas becoming blue and with a 100% guarantee they will try to suppress the vote.

[Afrospinach]

Right wingers are furious that they dont have any access to those 55 electoral votes from California, it has been a wet dream for right wingers to try to break up california so they get a share of those votes

It's funny, I thought it was the real dream of the side that lost the election was to make things more representative but whatevs. Can't deny the republican vote in cali which is substantial(larger than the entire population of half of the states in the US of A) counts for absolutely f all.

[God Save The King]

It's funny, I thought it was the real dream of the side that lost the election was to make things more representative but whatevs. Can't deny the republican vote in cali which is substantial(larger than the entire population of half of the states in the US of A) counts for absolutely f all.

This is why we should listen to popular vote, not state vote. Then all the Republicans in Blue States and Democrats in Red States get a voice.

[Moralgy]

It's funny, I thought it was the real dream of the side that lost the election was to make things more representative but whatevs. Can't deny the republican vote in cali which is substantial(larger than the entire population of half of the states in the US of A) counts for absolutely f all.

The moment we start splitting a state by political divides is the moment this country crumbles. If we allow Cali to split based on voting population, next comes Texas, then NY, and so on and so on. How about republicans try to convince more people in their state that they are the reasonable choice, just as democrats need to do the same in Texas.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why we should listen to popular vote, not state vote. Then all the Republicans in Blue States and Democrats in Red States get a voice.

I agree with this, and have even when it looked like Hillary could lose the popular but win the electoral.(Gotta point this out before someone flips their shit over it) But electoral college is sadly not going away for a very long time since no matter the timing, it'll seem political and the other side of the coin at that point in time would never agree with it.

[Antiganon]

I agree with this, and have even when it looked like Hillary could lose the popular but win the electoral.(Gotta point this out before someone flips their shit over it) But electoral college is sadly not going away for a very long time since no matter the timing, it'll seem political and the other side of the coin at that point in time would never agree with it.

The trick is that the next time a party wins the electoral vote but not the popular vote, THAT party needs to propose this bill. Any other scenario looks bad:

Won popular, lost electoral - trying to change the rules so they can win next time
Won both - rubbing your opponents nose in your victory
Lost both - butthurt that their candidate sucked
Lost popular, won electoral - trying to change the rules so nobody else can win on the same technicality

So let's get some midwestern Republican senators suggesting this, and then we'll talk.

[Afrospinach]

This is why we should listen to popular vote, not state vote. Then all the Republicans in Blue States and Democrats in Red States get a voice.

On aggregate it is not so bad. It is very unusual to lose the popular vote IIRC.

[draynay]

Keep dreaming, haters.

[Sunseeker]

I'm okay with this.

As a reident of Wyokota I wouldn't even notice.

[Elegiac]

Again, how about we strip statehood from any state under 1 million inhabitants and return them to territory status.

[God Save The King]

On aggregate it is not so bad. It is very unusual to lose the popular vote IIRC.

Still happens though. Personally, I don't think we should have a system where someone could win the Presidency with less than 23% of the popular vote, if they play the small state properly.

I also don't think we should have a system where someone could win with less than 50% of the vote, which is why I disagree with First Pass the Post Systems. As an example, Clinton was elected to the Presidency in 1992 with 43% of the vote. That means 57% of the country wanted someone else.

Also, we've had 58 elections for President, and 4 people have won the Presidency without the popular vote. That means around 7% of the time, America failed to elect the most popular candidate.

[spanishninja]

Still happens though. Personally, I don't think we should have a system where someone could win the Presidency with less than 23% of the popular vote, if they play the small state properly.

I also don't think we should have a system where someone could win with less than 50% of the vote, which is why I disagree with First Pass the Post Systems. As an example, Clinton was elected to the Presidency in 1992 with 43% of the vote. That means 57% of the country wanted someone else.

Also, we've had 58 elections for President, and 4 people have won the Presidency without the popular vote. That means around 7% of the time, America failed to elect the most popular candidate.

I know you know this, but Clinton won with 43% of the votes in 1992 because there were three major candidates that year. Perot ate up a lot of the votes that didn't go to either him or Bush (19% of total votes to be exact).

[God Save The King]

I know you know this, but Clinton won with 43% of the votes in 1992 because there were three major candidates that year. Perot ate up a lot of the votes that didn't go to either him or Bush (19% of total votes to be exact).

Yeah. Without Perot, it's possible that Bush Sr. would have won the election. In an STV like system, people could have put 1 - Perot, 2 - Bush, and Perot's votes would have transferred over.

I assume you also know this, but it's called the spoiler effect, because in FPTP systems, voting third party is essentially throwing your vote away.

Also in an STV like system, third party candidates would be possible, and the two big parties would have legitimate competition.

Anyway, I don't want to preach, so I'll stop there!

[araine]

This is why we should listen to popular vote, not state vote. Then all the Republicans in Blue States and Democrats in Red States get a voice.

But republicans will never tolerate that since they know they are outnumbered bigly as donny would say

- - - Updated - - -

Well Republicans are afraid of losing places that are becoming more brown. Texas was close past election. Now I have no fantasy of Texas becoming blue and with a 100% guarantee they will try to suppress the vote.

they are working very hard on making sure as few people as possible gets to vote, they know it is the only way they can win elections. really a better idea would be to run on ideas that folks actually like and support you know