Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United States

Investor Tim Draper Pushes Ballot Measure Splitting California Into 3 States (sfgate.com) 415

"One of several proposals aiming to split California into multiple smaller states has reportedly reached an important new goal thanks in large part to the efforts of its billionaire champion," writes schwit1. SFGate reports: Venture capitalist Tim Draper, who previously pushed a proposal that would split California into six states, says that his three-state proposal has enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot. On Thursday, Draper said in a statement that the "CAL 3" initiative has collected over 600,000 signatures from Californians who would like to see the state split into three. An initiative needs 366,000 signatures to appear on the ballot. "This is an unprecedented show of support on behalf of every corner of California to create three state governments that emphasize representation, responsiveness, reliability and regional identity," Draper said.
The U.S. Congress would still need to approve the change -- and it's probably useful to remember what happened when Draper tried splitting California into six states. He ultimately turned in 1.3 million signatures for a ballot measure in 2014, "only to see nearly half of them disqualified.

"He ended up about 100,000 short of the valid signatures he needed."

Investor Tim Draper Pushes Ballot Measure Splitting California Into 3 States

Comments Filter:
  • Senators (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @01:39PM (#56437191)
    It has always seemed weird to me that California has the same number of senators in Washington as North Dakota and Vermont.
    • Re: Senators (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14, 2018 @01:42PM (#56437203)

      Only because you fail to understand the senate exists to represent states. The house is supposed to represent the population / people.

      It's the stupid 17th amendment that makes this an issue and it's the main reason our federal government has become some completely disfunctional.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by quantaman ( 517394 )

        Only because you fail to understand the senate exists to represent states. The house is supposed to represent the population / people.

        It's the stupid 17th amendment that makes this an issue and it's the main reason our federal government has become some completely disfunctional.

        The poster doesn't failed to understand anything, they just recognize that it's a dumb system for the modern US.

        It made sense in the early US which was literally envisioned as a union of independent states, a pair of Senators meant that each government had representation at the big table.

        But as the national identity became established state identity subsided, and the idea of Senators representing the State government no longer made sense. Senators because just another representative for their national parti

      • No, it's absolutely not the reason the government is dysfunctional. The government is dysfunctional because wealth people - the oligarchy - can donate as much money as they want to their personal puppets that push private / corporate agendas ahead of public well being. Want to make the government work for the people by the people - campaign finance reform.
    • Re: Senators (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DatbeDank ( 4580343 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @01:55PM (#56437277)

      That's by design. I'll assume you're not an American and say this: the system is designed to allow equal weighted representation of high VS low population areas. It's the reason we have a large country with a lot of people in it as a democracy and not like China, a large country with a lot of people being governed by a dictator.

      • Re: Senators (Score:4, Insightful)

        by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @02:24PM (#56437403) Journal

        I doubt that the designers envisaged such a large disparity representation that this creates. 37M in CA vs. Wyoming with about .5M?

        • Plus the geography. Rhode Island is like this suburb, you could drive thru it on way to NYC and not notice. California, evening of day 2 at milemaker 790, you're like "damn, I've driven across Germany three times, I've driven across India from Pakistan to Nepal and I'm still in the same state!"

        • Population of Los Angeles metro: 13million [wolframalpha.com], almost 26x Wyoming. Larger than the bottom 13 states [wikipedia.org] combined.
        • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          I doubt that the designers envisaged such a large disparity representation that this creates. 37M in CA vs. Wyoming with about .5M?

          You doubt because you are ignorant [wikipedia.org].

          Let me assure you that Virginians envisaged the existence of Delaware and Rhode Island..

      • by pots ( 5047349 )
        The system was made to get the smaller colonies to sign off on the constitution. It was a placating measure, there was no aspect of good governance about it, and the idea that some voters have more say than others is abhorrent to our professed democratic values.
    • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @02:10PM (#56437353)

      It has always seemed weird to me that California has the same number of senators in Washington as North Dakota and Vermont.

      Short version: Works as intended. Small states supposed to have disproportionate power. Forces more compromise.

      Long version:

      The organization of the US government is heavily influenced by the concept of checks and balances, forced compromise. Power spread among the three branches of government, executive, legislature, judicial. Power spread among the interests of the people and the interests of the states. Power spread among the slowly changing and the rapidly changing. Power spread among the large and the small states.

      The Senate was designed to represent the state governments themselves and to be slowly changing (6 year terms rather than 2). Originally the senators were selected by the state governments. In 1913 things were changed so that Senators were directly elected by the people.

      The Senate was also designed specifically so that the large states could not dominate the small states, effectively making them vassals. This was an essential compromise that allowed the formation of the country in the first place. The small states would not have otherwise voted for the constitution if they did not have some sort of protection. The Senate is their protection, their balance, their tool of compromise.

      Keep in mind that the founding fathers not only feared powerful central governments, they also feared the poorly educated and overly emotional mob. They were worried the legislature could be dominated by the mob if purely directly elected. The Senate being selected by the state governments was intended to balance the influence of the mob with the influence of the better educated, the latter being more characteristic of those in the state governments compared to the average citizen.

      Well, that was the theory ... and in those days there was probably a large degree of truth to it. Today the Senate is a bit closer in composition to the House due to direct election so we have lost some of those benefits. However the protection of the small states still persists.

      • Short version: a bunch of weird rationalizations why some people should have votes that count more than other votes.

        For state issues, everybody in the state should have a vote of equal weight. For federal issues, everybody in the country should have a vote of equal weight. Making Wyoming votes count 3.6 times what a vote in California gets is bullshit derived from historical accidents. There's no good reason for it and the status quo should change.

        • by drnb ( 2434720 )
          Sorry, the rationalization seems to be on your side. You can't get what you want *all* the time so the world is so unfair. In most areas proportionality dominates, there are merely a couple of checks/balances where it does not. This forces compromise which moderates change and often leads to better results.

          Some federal issues have massive impact on individual states.

          Small states only get equal representation in one part of the legislature. The other part of the legislature, the one that controls spend
    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      The Constitution was built that way, to give smaller states excessive representation. This scheme is obviously designed, not to mitigate that feature, but to exploit it. It creates two sparsely populated Republican leaning states and one extremely densely populated Democratic leaning state.

      This tilts the Senate and presidential elections toward Republicans while leaving the House untouched.

      Here's an alternative: split California in two -- uniting the NorCal and SoCal proposed in this scheme -- and admit P

    • It's because the system tries to treat all states equally. Otherwise those states with more resources would undermine those without.

      The Senate is about the representation of the states as members of the country. The House of Reps is about representation of the people in the country.

    • by jrumney ( 197329 )
      Yes, but this initiative isn't about increasing the number of senators in proportion with the way Californians actually vote, the initiative is to gerrymander the borders into one big urban Democratic and two tiny rural Republican states.
  • by cahuenga ( 3493791 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @01:46PM (#56437229)
    Surely he represents the average californian
    • Well, Sacramento legislature & Governor actions simply do not reflect my interests, that is certain (& I am certainly not a billionaire.)

      Borders, welfare, taxes, sanctuary cities, gazillion $ high speed rail and on and on are simply outrageous.

  • Yeah right... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @01:49PM (#56437249)

    From tfa

    "The reasoning behind the proposal is that California has gotten too big to be governed effectively"

    Nonsense, the reason for this is to break up the largest Blue state to conservative's advantage.

    • How are those four new Democrat senators going to help the GOP? Are a few more seats in Congress worth it?

  • I do not oppose the idea of splitting CA into 3 or even 6 states because that would mean more senators. With a majority in the senate we could get more of our federal tax dollars back to pay for badly needed infrastructure projects (that of course assumes they would work together).

    I disagree with these specific divisions though. The man funding this want to make silicon valley its own state. I would prefer to make any new divisions horizontal instead of cutting out a small area and calling it state.

    Of

  • Because if nearly half of the 1.3 million signatures collected last time were disqualified and he was still short 100,000 signatures, that would mean that it requires at *LEAST* 750,000 signatures.

    The article says over 600,000.... assuming that means between 600,000 and 700,000, that's not going to be enough.

    Why were half the signatures from the last one disqualified anyways? What was wrong with them?

    • Can't find anything directly spelling it out, but the company hired to gather signatures, APC, apparently has an illustrious history of misleading people into signing petitions.

      https://pando.com/2015/07/03/j... [pando.com]

      • One of tells in these schemes (this is at least the fourth such scheme to be advanced by right-wing billionaires in recent years, two of them with Russian support) is that they do not respect country boundaries. It is not a matter of like minded counties wanting to separate themselves. Instead these schemes have the new inland "red states" cut deep salients into existing coastal urban counties to grab a chunk of the blue urban economy to pay their bills.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday April 14, 2018 @03:10PM (#56437621)
    he just wants to get the electoral votes of the right wing parts of California so he can push an agenda of low taxes, fewer social services and fewer worker protections. As an added bonus California's strong consumer protection laws benefit us all since they're too large a market to ignore, but this would split that market up into manageable chunks diluting their effect.

    California & New York are more or less the last bastions of civilization in the USA. They're the one place that was more or less untouched by Tea Party style trickle down low or no regulation politics. This would suck for the entire United States (including rural California) except for the billionaire class.

    Bottom line, we don't need to break up because we have nothing in common. 99% of us are members of the working class. That more than anything is what binds us, makes a whole. And it's also why guys like this want to split us up.
  • that forces a state to split up when it constitutes some % of the US population vs the combined rest of the states.

    It's ridiculous that 5 states in total have 1/3 of the population. We're a republic of states not a giant monolithic slab.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

    Not sure what that would mean for smaller states. And I'm sure this is probably flame bait

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by careysub ( 976506 )

      Hmm... is not ridiculous that the three states of Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota have a combined population of only 2/3 of one percent of nation? Clearly they should be required to merge to form one state. You must agree right?

      Ah, the right wing is always trying to cook up new rules to grant themselves more power.

    • It's not even states, it's cities. NYC has more people than 6 states combined.

Only God can make random selections.

Working...