Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
California Might Split Into 3 States. The US Should Only Keep One of Them.
This November, California voters will decide if they want their once Golden State split into three. Wracked by high debt, ridiculous taxes, and severe economic disparity, this plan is intended to give residents more control of their state government.
The ballot measure was drafted by Tim Draper, a Silicon Valley VC gazillionaire responsible for two past efforts to divide Cali six ways. His modified plan for an unholy trinity is considered an improvement since each new state would be more economically sustainable.
“Three states will get us better infrastructure, better education and lower taxes,” Draper said. “States will be more accountable to us and can cooperate and compete for citizens.”
On Tuesday, elections officials projected that Draper got more than enough signatures to make the ballot.
The new map would create a centrist Southern California, including much of the agricultural heartland, Riverside, and San Diego; a leftist state called California, running up the coast from LA to Monterey; and an essentially communist state called Northern California above them both. (A better name for the latter would be “Woke-ifornia.”)
If voters support the new map, both houses of the California Legislature would need to confirm it. Then it would go through the courts, the US Congress, and whoever sews new stars on the flag.
Quickly looking at the map, the problem for conservatives is quickly apparent. Instead of offering two bat-guano leftist senators, we’d end up with at least four and as many as six. No bueno.
Nevertheless, I support the plan wholeheartedly. Voters should split Cali thrice, have Sacramento give its blessing, and ship the paperwork to DC. At that point, Congress should endorse it … but only allow Southern California to remain in the union.
Let’s be honest: Californian progressives aren’t too happy with this whole American experiment. They regularly flout federal law while floating secession fanfic like #Calexit. The Supreme Court should cite “irreconcilable differences” and let the wayward spouse follow its heart. (Read all about it in the steamy Kamala Harris memoir, Eat, Love, Don’t Pray.)
Meanwhile, the pro-military San Diegans, uber-rich OC-ers, and salt-of-the-earth inlanders can finally escape Sacramento’s boot.
Perhaps the best part of this plan is that the cast-off Calis can finally prove to us dummies that anti-American socialism really works — it just hasn’t been tried yet.
One last note to surrounding states: We’re gonna need a wall. A big, beautiful wall.
Published in General
Wasn’t the last time the State of Jefferson was semi-seriously brought up the first part of December 1941? Then it got bumped off the front page with more pressing news.
Redraw Oregon and Washington from East-West to North-South division, roughly at the mountains. Pacifica will be fully socialist (with a military-industrial flare), while Cascadia will reflect farming, ranching and resource extraction conservatism (populism, libertarianism?).
Haven’t spent much time in Texas, eh?
Who gets the Alamo? And who has to take Austin?
I have never been to Texas. My understanding is that one could divide the state into five culturally distinct units.
Perhaps true, but four would want to be called Texas.
San Antonio would be a prime candidate for a new state capitol, so that question is moot.
The easy thing about splitting Texas is that we have five major cities (six if you count Dallas and Fort Worth separately) which are nowhere near each other in absolute terms. (“Close” is a relative term down here.) A five state split between West Texas (with a capitol in El Paso,) North Texas (Dallas,) Central Texas (Austin,) South Texas (San Antonio,) and East Texas (Houston,) is easily imaginable.
Well, they could each have individual names and be known collectively as “the States of Texas” or “the Texas states.”
It has four distinct climate zones. You could go that way.
Only in theory, and there is some dispute about that.
We could name them T, E, X, A, and S.
The chants at the football games would suck.
“Gimme a ‘T’!”
“What’s it spell?”
About which part?
Northern California isn’t as liberal, but it contains San Francisco, so it will be dominated by the left. Washington State isn’t leftist, but Seattle rules the entire state.
My reading of that map is that each “state” contains a major-metro area that will cause all three to be liberal. Not worth it.
Texas was an independent nation when she joined the union, and the terms of annexation in 1845 gave Texas ownership of all her public lands, as well as the right to divide into five different states. That is, I believe, unique amongst the several states. The disputes I recall have to do with the continued legitimacy of that right. Never paid much attention to it, though, because it’s never gonna happen.
It isn’t about which states you split up, it’s about how you split them up.
Oh I get that. But I can picture some grand 19th century compromise that would balance red and blue states (to the extent that that term means anything anymore).
So breaking California like this would give us two blue states and a purple state. Breaking NY in two would give us one red, one blue, ditto for Florida. Texas would be like 4-1 or something.
The point is that any breakup would have to be approved by Congress, and for that to happen, the scales would need to be balanced.