Radical plan to split California into three states earns spot on November ballot
California's 168-year run as a single entity, hugging the continent's edge for hundreds of miles and sprawling east across mountains and desert, could come to an end next year — as a controversial plan to split the Golden State into three new jurisdictions qualified Tuesday for the Nov. 6 ballot.If a majority of voters who cast ballots agree, a long and contentious process would begin for three separate states to take the place of California, with one primarily centered around Los Angeles and the other two divvying up the counties to the north and south. Completion of the radical plan — far from certain, given its many hurdles at judicial, state and federal levels — would make history.It would be the first division of an existing U.S. state since the creation of West Virginia in 1863.
California's 168-year run as a single entity, hugging the continent's edge for hundreds of miles and sprawling east across mountains and desert, could come to an end next year — as a controversial plan to split the Golden State into three new jurisdictions qualified Tuesday for the Nov. 6 ballot.
If a majority of voters who cast ballots agree, a long and contentious process would begin for three separate states to take the place of California, with one primarily centered around Los Angeles and the other two divvying up the counties to the north and south. Completion of the radical plan — far from certain, given its many hurdles at judicial, state and federal levels — would make history.
It would be the first division of an existing U.S. state since the creation of West Virginia in 1863.
Also at CNN and The Hill.
Previously: Proposal to Divide California Into Three States Could Land on the November Ballot
Related: Secessionists Formally Launch Quest for California's IndependenceCalifornia Secession Leader has Russian TiesCalexit: the "Bad Boys of Brexit" Throw Their Weight Behind Move to Split State
the more conservative areas of California don't like paying taxes
There must be more to it than that.
I don't like paying taxes either. But I do like having well maintained roads, street lights, traffic signals, public parks, libraries, some artwork, etc. Surely conservatives benefit from such things too? (well maybe not libraries, art, or parks that don't allow guns)
There is more to this than just "because taxes". I don't know what, though.
"I got mine (from you) and screw everyone else?" thats part of it.
But that would sound suspiciously like "wealth redistribution" wouldn't it? And I thought that was a liberal left wing thing.
It's only "wealth redistribution" depending on whether the first derivative of the amount of exploitation of the working class is positive or negative.
Nobody worries about the redistribution of wealth from the working class to the capitalist elites.
The vast majority of welfare in USA is corporate welfare.
Further, around 1972, wages in USA flattened.That was after the 1971 Powell Memorandum, sometimes used as the mark of the beginning of The Neoliberal Era.Characteristics of Neoliberalism [soylentnews.org]
That's an oxymoron.Left and Right are ECONOMIC terms."Left" means Anti-Capitalist.Liberals are NOT Anti-Capitalist.Liberalism -depends- on redistributing the wealth of Capitalists.It is -very- different from Leftism AKA Socialism AKA worker-ownership of the means of production.
The people you are referencing would properly be described as "slightly less Right". [politicalcompass.org]That is called a Liberal Democrat (even outside USA).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
There is more to this than just "because taxes". I don't know what, though.
Part of the story may also be that the demographics [statisticalatlas.com]: Northern California would be substantially whiter and substantially richer per capita than current California. Southern California would be heavily Hispanic, and on average poorer than current California.
Ah, thanks! Now that is an explanation that makes sense.
It also fits with what I seem to observe that conservatives are deeply afraid of dark skinned or non European descent people who seem to be appearing in the US. God certainly did not make then with the same rights as I have! No way! It must say that in the constitution somewhere, or the bible.
On a more practical matter. The richer per capita Northern California might not like paying taxes if non white people, living anywhere, might benefit from it.
But for them, paying the taxes would be easier because they'll keep cutting the taxes to rev the economy.
Remember, you gotta cut money to make money.
You're not doing well with terminology today.
A Conservative wants to slow progress to a crawl.“A Conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling STOP." [google.com] -- William F. Buckley, Jr.
Someone who wants to go BACK in time, e.g to erase the gains made by The Working Class, women, and people of color in the 20th Century, is a Reactionary. [google.com]Those people are RADICAL.Radical is the OPPOSITE of Conservative.
Well, not quite.
You can have a conservative (slow, incrementalist) approach to reactionaryism as well as progressivism.
You can have a radical (quick, large moves) approach to both as well.
But you're right about the definition of conservatism.
In case you haven't been paying attention, these areas of California - the more conservative ones - are really quite poorly represented both at the state and national level.
They suffer from horrible, unconstitutional laws/restrictions about firearms, as just one example, despite being in rural areas where you actually do need rifles/shotguns for varmints. Hell, I'd never consider moving to California for this reason alone.
And yes, they're heavily taxed. Remember the rallying cry 'No taxation without representation?'
In case you haven't been paying attention . . .
I don't live in California. So your explanation, and others' here are helpful.
they're heavily taxed
If they are unfairly taxed, then IMO they have a genuine grievance. But, somehow, I suspect that any taxes would be considered too heavy.
They suffer from horrible, unconstitutional laws/restrictions about firearms
People in more densely populated areas suffer from horrible mentally ill people with firearms.
Now if only the two groups could get together and come to some reasonable compromises. I suspect at least one group is unwilling to do so. But I don't know for a fact. There are clearly some individuals who simply should not have firearms. If you live in a rural area, you might not meet very many of them. Or might be one of them, but that is pure speculation.
It's not just all about guns.
It's about urbanites and suburbanites forcing life decisions on rural communities, without knowledge or experience or exposure to the problems of those communities, but often with a lot of self-righteous, activist-driven opinions.
Do guns enter into that discussion? Sure. So do everything from construction regulations to water management.
> being in rural areas where you actually do need rifles/shotguns for varmints
Most Dems are ok with single-action long guns and shotguns. The varmints are not a valid reason to want to sell everyone a glock or an AR...
Semi-automatics are justified for fast-moving varmints.
I guess you could use very fast repeater actions such as pump or lever, but you might as well use semi-automatics.
Or, you know, just go banning things because it feels good, but let's not pretend that culling feral hogs with a single shot rifle is a good plan.
You're a shitty hunter. Your ancestors would like to smack you over the head, and leave you to die of starvation.
Do you bother to wonder how hunters and farmers deal with big wild game in the majority of countries where semi-auto long guns, and even pump-action shotguns are forbidden, and all you get to own is a breech loader?
Speak for yourself. I've tracked shy game and hit them with longbow. I'm a well-practised countryman.
However, I'm also not an idiot, and I don't reach for bad solutions when good ones are available.