Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

CA split ... who's voting for/against this?


Recommended Posts

Just now, Make Angels Great Again said:

Isn't it meaningless though? I mean, California can't decide on its own that it suddenly wants to be 3 states. Doesn't congress have to approve that?

Meaningless, no. It is the required first step. But yeah, it won't go anywhere if Republicans are in charge. They aren't going to want to give Democrats possibly 4 more seats in the senate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Meaningless, no. It is the required first step. But yeah, it won't go anywhere if Republicans are in charge. They aren't going to want to give Democrats possibly 4 more seats in the senate. 

The new "Southern California" could easily swing republican and hence go 2 new democrats & 2 new republicans in the senate.  Which in effect would just slightly lessen the impact of the existing 2 democratic Senators from California, right?  Sure, California would have a much bigger voting block when they stand together, but i think overall it isn't necessarily a win for democrats.

 

Anyway, I like the idea in spirit, but I find the boundaries totally convoluted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, well_red said:

The new "Southern California" could easily swing republican and hence go 2 new democrats & 2 new republicans in the senate.  Which in effect would just slightly lessen the impact of the existing 2 democratic Senators from California, right?  Sure, California would have a much bigger voting block when they stand together, but i think overall it isn't necessarily a win for democrats.

I think it would be purplish but definitely trending blue long term unless the Republicans somehow learn to love the inner latino. 

But were missing the most important part. How fubar would a 52 star flag look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The costs and issues associated with this would be massive.

Costs associated with breaking up things like state parks, voting systems, transportation, universities (out of state tuition), social services, k-12 schools...how to deal with pension systems and CALPERS. Water compacts (how would the city of LA owning a significant portion of Southern California work?). Significant impact to California based companies with locations in now different states will end up dealing with multiple tax laws and regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, red321 said:

The costs and issues associated with this would be massive.

Costs associated with breaking up things like state parks, voting systems, transportation, universities (out of state tuition), social services, k-12 schools...how to deal with pension systems and CALPERS. Water compacts (how would the city of LA owning a significant portion of Southern California work?). Significant impact to California based companies with locations in now different states will end up dealing with multiple tax laws and regulations.

Job creation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, red321 said:

The costs and issues associated with this would be massive.

Costs associated with breaking up things like state parks, voting systems, transportation, universities (out of state tuition), social services, k-12 schools...how to deal with pension systems and CALPERS. Water compacts (how would the city of LA owning a significant portion of Southern California work?). Significant impact to California based companies with locations in now different states will end up dealing with multiple tax laws and regulations.

Yes the costs would be massive but long term it allows them to be governed at a more local level, at least compared to what we get now.  As far as CA companies who would now have locations in different states this something most companies already deal with it.  Nexus is ridiculous as each state has their own rules, calculations and regulations which can vary based on the entity type, industry and so on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the political structure doesn't dramatically change in this country this is a move that really should happen eventually. I'm not sure this proposal is the right manner to do so. Especially breaking up the LA metro and the fun that will cause. With the right proposal it's the appropriate thing to do, though making two states instead of three seems far more attainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Yes the costs would be massive but long term it allows them to be governed at a more local level, at least compared to what we get now.  As far as CA companies who would now have locations in different states this something most companies already deal with it.  Nexus is ridiculous as each state has their own rules, calculations and regulations which can vary based on the entity type, industry and so on.  

Does it really? California would still have LA and LA County, Northern California would have the Bay Area. Southern California would end up with San Diego, Fresno, and the IE. Local level government is still at the county and municipal level.

I think of a lot of this stems from the fact that the Republican party in California has made itself obsolete so the Democrats continue to have outsized influence.

To me this is another example of governing by initiative which takes huge and significant issues and turns them into a 30 second ad. If the state was to seriously consider splitting to me they would have to start holding detailed discussions and develop initial plans so people really understand what they are being asked to vote on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean local in regards to people in Southern California answering to people in Sacramento.  Decisions that get made in Sacramento aren't always what's best for Southern California just like decisions made by Washington aren't always what's best for CA, Texas and so on.  I think it stems from decisions like declaring a sanctuary state when Sacramento speaks for the entire state and we see cities and even polls that show a lot aren't in favor of it.  The democrats do have a stranglehold on the state and I can fault the republican party but at the end of the day no side having that much power is ever a good thing.  I think something like this has to start with an initiative because how often do you see people with power deciding to give it up?  I don't envision people who run the state would spend their time, money or energy looking into breaking it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...