Once easily mistaken for political satire, venture capitalist Tim Draper's "Six Californias" ballot measure to tear the Golden State asunder seems bound for the November 2016 ballot. Draper, who has shelled out $4.9 million on his oft-mocked and maligned campaign, announced he'll submit petition signatures for the measure Tuesday and hold a news conference in Sacramento. "California needs a reboot," said a news release issued Monday by his committee. "Six Californias is our opportunity to solve the many problems we face today. ... Six states that are more representative and accountable. Six states that embrace innovation and strive to improve the lives of residents." The measure would split California into six states, each with its own government; much of the Bay Area, plus Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, would become the state of Silicon Valley. California's northernmost parts would become Jefferson, as some counties up there have wanted for years; some North Bay counties would become part of North California; Stockton, Fresno and Bakersfield would be among Central California's largest cities; Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara would wind up in West California; and San Diego would anchor South California. Silicon Valley would become the nation's richest state while Central California would become its poorest, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office found. "This is a colossal and divisive waste of time, energy, and money that will hurt the California brand, our ability to attract business and jobs, and move our state forward together," said Steve Maviglio, a veteran Democratic strategist speaking for the OneCalifornia committee created to oppose Draper's effort. "It's unfortunate that Mr. Draper is putting his millions into this effort to split up our state rather than help us face our challenges." While it's sure to become fodder for late-night talk show hosts from coast to coast, the measure still faces tremendous hurdles, not the least of which is money: Draper so far is the only contributor. And even if California voters approve the measure, splitting the state still would require action by Congress. "He's got a pretty high bar to pass," said Corey Cook, director of the University of San Francisco's Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good. "There'll be a general skepticism of how dividing the state would improve it." Cook also said it'll be hard for Draper to find anyone else willing to bankroll the effort. "I'm not sure it's a wildly popular idea, and I think the perception is that if this guy wants to propose it, he can fund it too." http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_26148009/six-californias-measure-se
You'd think the Dems would be all over this in support. 5 more states, 10 more senators to vote for the DemoCraps? That would be even better than destroying the country in an effort to secure the Hispanic vote. Here's a thought... the people of means... the hard working and successful... DON'T REALLY WANT TO PAY FOR AND SUPPORT ALL THE PARASITES!!
This stands about as much chance as DC becoming a state. Less actually because all the dems support the DC idea. It makes far more sense for the entire country to be divided or devolved. There are genuine geographic, historical and cultural reasons to support splitting the US into four or five new countries. My split would be the following: 1. The South. 2. Northeast and New England. 3. Upper Midwest. 4. Great Plains and Mountains. 5. West Coast. Actually a three-way split might make more sense. The South and Plains/Mountains as one country, the Northeast and Midwest as another, and the West as the third. Each of these regions could be economic powerhouses, particularly if freed from disagreements with competing regions. The Northeast would have impressive financial, manufacturing and educational resources. The South/Plains would be free to develop its natural resources, agriculture and defense industries. The West would be a high tech mecca. Once unthinkable, a splitup could save us. The increasingly ugly divisions in our country and irreconcilable positions could well lead to the sort of conflict we see across the world. Wise leaders would hopefully manage the process this time and avoid the tragic loss of life our first Civil War produced.
Prior to the civil war you had nearly perfect geographic separation between the opposing sides. It was relatively clear who to fight. Now the opposing sides are intermingled. They are your neighbors. It simply isn't possible for a national civil conflict to occur. What I think will happen is eventually some state, probably Texas, will simply tell the liberal federal government to fuck off and will start running its own show. People will either move there or move away. Businesses in those states might be ordered to stop withholding federal income tax from the paychecks of its "citizens" and instead to direct those withholdings to the state who will provide for defense and infrastructure in place of the federal government. If the feds were so stupid as to try to invade they might find out what a massively armed citizenry is capable of.