New California

[Elegiac]

If a state isn't a swing state, it needs adjusting until it is one. Only way to keep everyone relevant.

Or, novel thought, we get rid of 'swing states' entirely by switching to a different electoral system so that everyone's vote counts equally.

[Jastall]

If a state isn't a swing state, it needs adjusting until it is one. Only way to keep everyone relevant.

In the real world that's never going to happen. Make it popular and you don't need swing states at all anymore.

In regards to local issues, there are always several tiers of government that caters to them as they should; municipal, state, and congressional level (especially the Senate) which have more than their fair share of power. The President should be the President of everyone.

[Flame6]

NVPIC is a coalition of states that promise to send their electors to the EC based on the popular vote. The pact will only go into effect if 50% of the EC signs up. This means that regardless of how their individual state votes, they will send electors based on the national popular vote. Once it breaks 50%, then they hold the majority of the EC's power, and the pact will elect the president.

To give an example, in this last election, if the pact was in effect, all the signatories would have sent delegates to the EC to vote for Hillary Clinton, and it does not matter how each state voted. She'd have won because more than 270 EC votes (the number needed to win) would have been committed due to the pact. It's the states' way of getting around the Constitution.

That's a clever way to do it, except some states already have laws invalidating and making it illegal to cast an "improper" vote. Would these state laws stand up in court? Probably not.

[God Save The King]

That's a clever way to do it, except some states already have laws invalidating and making it illegal to cast an "improper" vote. Would these state laws stand up in court? Probably not.

The pact provides a provision, making it illegal to cast a vote deviating from the popular vote of the country!

[pathora44]

Man these idiots constantly calling for California to be split up are a bunch of freaking idiots. This supposed split they are asking for here could never support itself and would fall into the same place as most deep red states, poor as fuck surviving purely on the Federal Government.

[Sky High]

Goodbye Cali will be nice to never have another democratic win the popular vote with +4 million votes from 1 state...

Yeah too bad they still left the far more populated areas in one proposed state. This is as likely to happen as “north and south” California, so good luck with this Dum dums.

[xRandx]

That's impractically retarded. You'd essentially have to weigh votes in such a way that 5% of the population who live in rural areas have votes as strong as the other 95% living in cities.

There's nothing "fair" about that. Like I said, it essentially resorts to an archaic system of people who own the most land have the most power.

The electoral college is a horribly designed way to vote in the first place. a Horrible way to provide a "Republic" when it barely even fits that description.

[Zensunni]

The county I grew up in in Norcal ratified the Jefferson thing. It's totally absurd. They'd be back in ten years time, on their knees and begging to be let back in when their new developing country lifestyle set in.

[Machismo]

Again just a little common sense here... would make building something like an aqueduct a criminal act. If the body of water is owned by the federal government, than building infrastructure that essentially STEALS that water would be illegal. Unless they had some sort of agreement with the federal government to use that water.

Water reserves, are built with state funds and are state owned. If the land that these bodies of water are on, a suddenly no longer property of that state... it would stand to reason if they wanted access to it they would need to pay for it.

If what you are saying is true, other states would be able to tap into neighboring states bodies of water for their own use, without the permission from the State itself, only the federal government... it doesn't work like that.

I'd be happy to eat my words if you can find a shred of reputable and relevant evidence that suggests otherwise. Also lets be clear we aren't talking about States that share a naturally existing waterway like a river, in which borders are drawn specifically because of those natural features. You would need to find a state that is taking power, water, or gas from another State without paying directly to said State. Please... find it.

Honestly, it probably would be against federal law in most cases. Federal rules and guidelines dictate the use of most water, and the deeds are controlled by the Department of the Interior.

[unbound]

Ultimately, if this was a legitimate idea, it wouldn't be discussed solely as California. This nothing more than political nonsense (basically, a Republican power grab), not a serious topic of discussion. Where are the similar plans for Texas, Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc, etc, etc?

If you want a serious discussion, it needs to focus a bit more on why a minority has such strong control on our politics. Much of this has to do with general lack of knowledge of where the citizens of the US actually reside. This is one of the better maps showing that (yes, it is cartoon, and, yes, it is accurate...and you can see how the Rural California talk definitely is a Republican power grab).



We have all this land with very few people who have *far* too much influence on the lives of the majority. And this trend will only get worse. The jobs are in cities, not the country side. Yes, we need to understand and help with the challenges of rural America, but we can't ignore and fail to help with the challenges of our major population centers in the process. I know people who live in the middle-of-nowhere America, and, by and large, they are good people...but, if anything, they are even more ignorant of the challenges of large population centers than people in big cities are of rural America.

The solution isn't the creation of even more rural states. The solution lies somewhere completely different.

[Paranoid Android]

Progressives. Let's start creating threads on the state of Austin, Houston, Atlanta and New Orleans. About as bad as these threads happen to be.

[The Stormbringer]

Yeah, I really like this idea. The current pact possesses 165 electoral votes, and another group of states, currently with an additional 149EVs, are considering the proposal this year. While a long-shot, it isn't unfeasible for the pact to be in effect for 2020, especially after the 2016 election.

Ideally I'd just say abolish the electoral college, because there's no need for it anymore. A large percentage of the people who don't vote simply don't because they don't care to (though there are those who can't get away from work, get away from home, etc. but mail-in ballots are a thing these days).