Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Interesting budget quandry... (Score 1) 547

The interstate commerce clause of the constitution will not allow this. Also these two morons trying to split the state will almost with a certainty will not have that kind of authoritarian power to dictate the prices that farmers can sell their goods for, and the independent minded family farmers would ignore any attempt to tell them where they can and cannot sell their goods and for what prices.

Comment Re:Let's keep things even (Score 1) 547

Two new senators. That's why people want to split states. The senate is an outdated idea I think, Montana gets 2 senators but only 1 member of the house. But it still has the advantage that a senator represents an entire state and not some gerrymandered district with safe elections. Splitting a state up on political lines is essentially gerrymandering with senators.

Comment Re: Will fail as well (Score 1) 547

Or, the food will just cross the border anyway. The state cannot stop interstate commerce. It's not like this mythical new state was going to be a separate country altogether. There's going to be a market to buy and sell food and no amount of haranguing from a few political extremists is going to make this market voluntarily dry up. After all, California already happily sells food to all the states in the union, red or blue.

Comment Re:Better idea: Split the US in two countries (Score 1) 547

Better idea: Split the US in two countries. The Red States and the Blue States. And build a wall between the two.

It's more like Blue Cities and Red Rural. Almost all rural areas vote Republican and all urban areas vote Democratic. It's hard to find states which are entirely red or blue. It would be pretty difficult to wall off all the major cities from their surroundings.

Rural areas and urban areas are still relatively purple. In California the counties lean slightly one way or the other, except for a few outliers. Because they only lean slightly in one direction, they can easily change, and they have changed over time.

Also note that in rural counties in California that we have tons of hispanic voters (remember this was a part of Mexico). Because of the heavy anti immigrant and anti hispanic stances that prominent California Republicans have expressed in the past, they're going to find if very difficult to sway those voters to their side.

Look at other counties chosen to be a part of this new state (not that the counties were asked their opinion of course). San Diego county is Republican mostly because of the pro-military views, but otherwise the country is very moderate and could swing easily. Orange county could easily be swayed. Fresno county, it has quite a few Democratic politicians in office. Contra Costa is already pretty liberal, it can swing easily.

Comment Re:Obio0vusly republicans (Score 1) 547

The political problem is that splitting adds two extra senators. That's the only major political change; the house of representatives (the more reactionary body) will stay the same. Getting a new republican state won't change the house one bit. But it will affect the senate. The snag is that California can't decide to split on its own, the rest of the country won't allow it. And that new Republican state may not state Republican for very long, California is very much a purple state.

Comment Re:Which billionaire is funding this one? (Score 2) 547

Brown is basically a moderate. Schwarzenegger was moderate too. Both got elected even though they were far from their party's ideal choice. That's a good thing, and it would be nice if the parties wised up and realized that going moderate will get them far bigger wins than by pandering to the extreme wings.

Comment Re:Which billionaire is funding this one? (Score 1) 547

Also, if the state gets split up, the desired effect will still not happen. These people probably naively assume that they will be the ones in charge and will be able to pass all sorts of reforms exactly how they want. In reality they'll just find out that they created smaller versions of the same problem. In ten or twenty years, they'll be bitching that San Diego and Fresno have all the power and are steering the entire state.

Besides, it can't happen. The rest of the country is not going to be happy with two 2 California senators turning into 4, 6, or more senators. California can't split unilaterally. Never mind that it's only a very tiny fraction of the population that would support this, they would never even get a referendum passed.

Comment Re:Which billionaire is funding this one? (Score 1) 547

Every 5 to 10 years this happens. You get three people together who feel the same way and suddenly they think they can make this pipe dream work. This idea never seems to be held by people with moderate political views, it's always the extremists or those with a grudge to settle with the state or county.

Comment Re: Which billionaire is funding this one? (Score 1) 547

Well, there have been people wanting to split Fresno county into the valley half versus the mountain half for as long as I can remember. There's no way to split up the state and have it go well. Any split leads to more splits, or leads to bad blood, or leads to violence, etc. People need to learn from history.

We have enough people living in a bubble on social media, we don't need to reinforce the bubble by drawing borders to remove people you disagree with.

Comment Re:Which billionaire is funding this one? (Score 1) 547

Naw. First, not many people support this. There's always some sort of fringe movement trying to split California, this is just one of a long line. There is no popular support behind it though.

Second, the rural counties are not necessary hardcore right wing. Sure, it elects hard core republicans, but that's because the primary system discourages moderates, even if the general election is 55%/45%. Even in a rural county, most of the votes are in the cities. Notice that they left San Diego and Orange counties in the new state; those are very likely to go more liberal in the future, it's what happens with urban areas. The only thing keeping San Diego leaning right is all the military contracts.

It's naive to think one can craft a better state by getting rid of people one disagrees with. It's never worked historically, and it's really only ever been accomplished with violence and authoritarian governments.

Slashdot Top Deals

The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.

Working...