idhawkman wrote:California may be able to put it on the ballot this year for their elections but it will never pass the US congress since no senator will vote to dilute their own vote.
idhawkman wrote:California may be able to put it on the ballot this year for their elections but it will never pass the US congress since no senator will vote to dilute their own vote.
RiverDog wrote:
Senators would only be diluting their votes by 1%, so I don't think that would factor into it at all. IMO what would factor into it would be the likely political make-up of the new state. The proposed new state within California is mostly rural, which means conservative, so you could count on the Republicans lining up to approve it and the Dems fighting tooth and nail against it.
idhawkman wrote:The map I saw was for California to be split into 3 states creating 4 new Senators - roughly 4%. Since the House is already determined by districts and numbers of poeple it shouldn't effect the number of house members though.
The map I saw also shows that the northern California state would include S.F. which would definitely keep it in the Dems pocket. California was mostly the L.A. area including HollyWeird, Beverly Hills, etc. which also would be squarely in the Dems pocket. The only one maybe up for grabs would be Southern California but from what was reported the lines are such that it would definitely stay in the Dems pocket.
The current balance of power in the Senate wouldn't vote for ratification based on the makeup of the states now and I don't think the "fly-over" states would ever allow more power to be pulled to either coast. I'm not positive but I believe it would take 67 senators to approve any split in the state which I don't see happening for quite some time.
Additionally, I don't think any of the Senators (Dem or Republican) would want to split up their lobby money with other votes that could reduce their fundraising leverage.
I think it is an exercise in futility by the Californians and wishful thinking that they can influence/rule over the fly-over states.
Being that CA is currently one of the bluest of blue states, the R's can't help but benefit from splitting the state.
burrrton wrote:Hm- I'm not so sure. If they were splitting it in two, maybe- three, though?
Dems would effectively be doubling their guaranteed influence in the Senate (2 of the 3 new "states" will still vote 90% Dem) while tossing a bone with the 3rd state that (from what I've read) may or may not vote Republican (although they're certainly more conservative than SanFran/LA).
So they'd be increasing the size of the Senate by 4 seats, 2 of which will be reliably blue and 2 of which will be only reddish. It's still Cali-freaking-fornia for heaven's sake, and the border won't be gerrymandered to guarantee 1-party rule.
I don't see that as a slam-dunk for Republicans (or maybe I'm missing something in it all because I've only paid passing attention to it, if I paid any at all, because it's never, ever going to happen).
Aseahawkfan wrote:If I were a Californian able to carve out a wedge for a more conservative state, I'd support it.
burrrton wrote:Yeah, if you're not San-Fran-bananas-liberal, I would think a state where it might actually be worth voting for a POTUS candidate would be appealing.
As it is now, there's no reason to even bother checking the box (and I think many don't).
Aseahawkfan wrote:Same way in Washington. The hippy liberal bunch have so much power in Washington now, we'll be rich and poor soon enough. Either on the state or paying them in taxes to keep the poor herded into other areas just like always happens when the socialists take too much in taxes and fees creating the haves and have nots rather than creating an environment where the productive can own things without having to pay just for doing so.
c_hawkbob wrote:Having lived in both rural and urban communities it seems to me as though both groups are equally clueless about the issues facing the other. City folk just b**** about it less.
The state [WA] is as blue as they come.
c_hawkbob wrote:Urban and rural does not equal red and blue. There are plenty of both in each demographic.
burrrton wrote:This is true in the end, but I'm reminded of the 2004 Governor election**.
Also, people tend to forget that 'landslides' outside of states like CA and NY means (typically) a few percentage points over 50- this country is pretty evenly divided, at least by that measure, with CA/NY being outliers.
**We actually did 'elect' a Republican that year (twice, in fact) but there was not one but TWO recounts, the second by *hand*, and (surprise!) they kept finding boxes of ballots in people's trunks (that's literally what they claimed), and (surprise surprise!) every recount handed Gregoire more votes and she won by something like 100 votes.
burrrton wrote:I don't get that excited about it, but if it *wasn't* crooked, they did their damndest to make it appear so.
Also, I'd be a little pissed if I was a KingCo voter- how many voters' ballots go uncounted in the back of some a-hole's Tercel every election??
burrrton wrote:
This is true in the end, but I'm reminded of the 2004 Governor election**.
Also, people tend to forget that 'landslides' outside of states like CA and NY means (typically) a few percentage points over 50- this country is pretty evenly divided, at least by that measure, with CA/NY being outliers.
**We actually did 'elect' a Republican that year (twice, in fact) but there was not one but TWO recounts, the second by *hand*, and (surprise!) they kept finding boxes of ballots in people's trunks (that's literally what they claimed), and (surprise surprise!) every recount handed Gregoire more votes and she won by something like 100 votes.
idhawkman wrote:So that's when they quit recounting, right? Otherwise, there'd have been another trunk found somewhere....
RiverDog wrote:Didn't Rossi challenge some votes, claiming that they were felons? I think that's what the court rejected.
burrrton wrote:Right- same outcome, though (no third recount).
Actually Rossi wasn't arguing for another re-count, he wanted a re-vote due to concerns over the integrity of the election. A lower court said no, citing a lack of evidence.
c_hawkbob wrote:Having lived in both rural and urban communities it seems to me as though both groups are equally clueless about the issues facing the other. City folk just b**** about it less.
Aseahawkfan wrote:You been in Seattle lately? The protests here are insane. We had guys laying down in the middle of the road protesting the building of a youth prison. We had a head tax. Then a head tax repeal. Then the socialist member of the Seattle City Council protested the head tax repeal and encouraged lawyers to sue the city for repealing the head tax. Then we have Antifa here all the time protesting business, while they coordinate with cell phones on networks built by the businesses they protest. Then we had people sitting on top of Chase bank protesting whale killing that the bank maybe loaned money to. Then anti and pro-immigrant protests. It's really insane here.
C-bob, you don't live in Washington and haven't lived in Washington for a long while. I don't hear about rural folk protesting so often the disrupt traffic in the city often enough to make people late to work and drive them out of the city. The socialist member of the Seattle City Council literally state she wanted to take control of Boeing and Amazon because she thought her socialist party could do a better job running both companies.
You live in Kentucky? I bet you hear more bitching from the rural folks. But here in Seattle the city folk b**** far more than the rural folks protesting just about everything they can protest. It's stupid. We have an avowed socialist that preaches against Amazon and Big Business like some Communist elected to the Seattle City Council. It is really bad here right now. And businesses are starting to take measures to leave because of it. We have people right now in Seattle that have made Amazon, Microsoft, and Boeing into the Legion of Doom.
It used to be we had the pro-union Democrats. They were generally more reasonable and seemed like mostly normal folk. Seattle has been taken over by far left groups reaching San Francisco levels of crazy.
...as if it was any of their business and something they knew nothing about except for the environmental impact.
burrrton wrote:And only one tiny slice of the environmental impact! Outside of upsetting the fish a bit (something they've gone to great lengths, rather successfully, to eliminate), they're as clean, abundant, and cheap a source of energy as can be imagined this side of a perpetual energy machine.
Aseahawkfan wrote:You been in Seattle lately? The protests here are insane. We had guys laying down in the middle of the road protesting the building of a youth prison. We had a head tax. Then a head tax repeal. Then the socialist member of the Seattle City Council protested the head tax repeal and encouraged lawyers to sue the city for repealing the head tax. Then we have Antifa here all the time protesting business, while they coordinate with cell phones on networks built by the businesses they protest. Then we had people sitting on top of Chase bank protesting whale killing that the bank maybe loaned money to. Then anti and pro-immigrant protests. It's really insane here.
C-bob, you don't live in Washington and haven't lived in Washington for a long while. I don't hear about rural folk protesting so often the disrupt traffic in the city often enough to make people late to work and drive them out of the city. The socialist member of the Seattle City Council literally state she wanted to take control of Boeing and Amazon because she thought her socialist party could do a better job running both companies.
You live in Kentucky? I bet you hear more bitching from the rural folks. But here in Seattle the city folk b**** far more than the rural folks protesting just about everything they can protest. It's stupid. We have an avowed socialist that preaches against Amazon and Big Business like some Communist elected to the Seattle City Council. It is really bad here right now. And businesses are starting to take measures to leave because of it. We have people right now in Seattle that have made Amazon, Microsoft, and Boeing into the Legion of Doom.
It used to be we had the pro-union Democrats. They were generally more reasonable and seemed like mostly normal folk. Seattle has been taken over by far left groups reaching San Francisco levels of crazy.
RiverDog wrote:
Don't forget the $5 million that the city spent on toilets for the homeless that ended up being used by prostitutes and drug users and eventually sold on Ebay for $2500 apiece.
ASF is not exagurating. It doesn't include the entire Puget Sound region, but the City of Seattle itself is completely insane.
One of my favorite examples of urban folks dictating to us rural folks is when the Seattle City Council passed a resolution advocating the breaching of the lower Snake River dams...as if it was any of their business and something they knew nothing about except for the environmental impact. In response, the Moses Lake City Council passed a resolution advocating the breaching of the Ballard Locks, which regulates the level of Lake Washington, in order to restore the lake shore to its natural state and re-create habitat for spawning salmon but would have left hundreds of boat docks at million dollar homes high and dry. The Seattle council quicky backed off, asked that cooler heads prevail.
I don't see rural folks entering urban debates, like whether or not to build a monorail (another colossal waste of money) or replace the Alaskan Way viaduct with another viaduct or a tunnel. But urban folks are constantly dictating to us out here in the sticks, whether it be moving the opening day of hunting season back from sunrise to noon, trying to ban studded snow tires, or most recently, trying to enact a carbon tax that would have hit us much harder than those in urban areas that have shorter distances to travel and access to mass transit. Our only salvation is the state legislature, which is almost always more conservative than the Governor, and provides a check on his/her authority.
burrrton wrote:they're as clean, abundant, and cheap a source of energy as can be imagined this side of a perpetual energy machine.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests