Plan to divide California into 6 states advances
Source: AP
LOS ANGELES — California has reached the breaking point, says Tim Draper. The Silicon Valley venture capitalist is pushing a proposal to crack the nation’s most populous state into smaller pieces — six of them.
California has grown so big, so inefficient, it’s essentially ungovernable, according to a ballot initiative that could reach voters as early as November.
...“Vast parts of our state are poorly served by a representative government,” according to Draper’s plan, which cleared a key government hurdle this week, part of the process to qualify for the ballot. California residents “would be better served by six smaller state governments.”
In an interview Thursday, Draper said he has seen a state once regarded as a model slide into decline — many public schools are troubled, transportation, water and other infrastructure systems are overmatched and outdated, spending on prisons has soared.
A group of ...
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/plan-to-divide-california-into-6-states-advances/2014/02/20/2d46fc70-9a90-11e3-9900-dd917233cf9c_story.html
Even if you don't wish to read the rest of the article do yourself a favor and click through to read what just might be the most intriguing solution to prison overcrowding ever.
Look for BubbaNicholson's comment.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I think Jefferson and *possibly* North California would be fine, waterwise.
I would be surprised if this plan did not lead to actual, literal fighting between the farmers in the San Joaquin, who will have been cut off from Northern California water, and people in the Bay Area, who will have been cut off from Hetch Hetchy and Mokelumne water.
Good times. 
separate entities for the purpose of creating more Republican districts.
It is "OK" for me to make the statement that I did because this is a discussion board, where people share something called "opinions."
Sounds like you're spoiling for a fight--but you're not presenting anything by way of a thesis, because your "argument" makes no damn sense. California is a powerful state as it is, why anyone would want to chop it up into six "not powerful" states is OBVIOUS--for craven political reasons having nothing to do with the welfare of the state or its people. It's why this proposal is being laughed at by anyone with a hint of political savvy.
Let me be more specific. That's why this is a REPUBLICAN initiative, created by a REPUBLICAN, and they're the ones who are touting it. You're on a DEMOCRATIC board here, so why are you getting so aggrieved and shirty, I have to wonder?
Since you're so 'wired in' to the scene in CA, you should know where this is coming from...shouldn't you? Maybe you should read through some of the responses in this thread, as well--they'll help to clue you in because you're either bold as hell or woefully lacking in understanding with regard to this issue.
Here, let me quote another source that's also wired into the Northern California scene:
That may be particularly appealing to a Republican like Draper living in what is now one large, increasingly Democratic state.
Draper's proposal comes after supervisors in Siskiyou and Modoc passed declarations this fall supporting withdrawal from California. The movement's prospects are dim. Even if Draper could get a ballot measure passed, redrawing state lines would require one other Herculean step: an act of Congress.
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/12/tim-draper-proposes-splitting-california-into-six-states.html#storylink=cpy
Hmmm....Tim Draper, is that YOU? Someone is all over Wikipedia trying to delete information about that feller....makes me wonder! You'd think he'd be too busy flogging kids to sell sex toys to have time for these kinds of shenanigans...but ya never know.
I will leave you with this final obvious point is obvious: It's not being "intolerant" to reject right-wing mendacity and stupidity. It's more like being sensible, using the brains that are between your ears, and sticking with the best deal that benefits the greatest number of people who are citizens of the state, instead of the lousy, shitty deal that benefits the Party of the One Percent at the expense of the citizenry.
The only way that Californians will become "turds" or "shitty" is if GOP shills rig the voting machines and ram this horrible idea down their throats, and Congress has a brain fart and approves this pea-brained scheme. What part of "dim prospects" is difficult for you to comprehend? What part of cited sources from California--not the east coast--are too hard for you to click on and read?
Are you living in some sort of bubble? I thought you claimed to have your ear to the ground? Apparently, the ground you've got your ear to is unconnected to reality, or is connected to Tim Draper's GOP brain.
You can wish all day for six states to make your commute to Disneyland shorter (?? 
??) but it ain't gonna happen, and California will remain powerful, one of the world's largest economies, free and BLUE.
Taking comments so completely out of context (six states would be turds, but you knew that, and the only thing shitty is this dumbass idea) in a lame and desperate effort to "score" points is a failed enterprise. That is what you tried to do in your last post and I am pointing it out so there's no mistake. People here are smarter than that and it just makes you look, well...OBVIOUS.
Your POV on this issue is about as liberal as that of the idiot who is shopping the idea. So, keep digging if you must--it won't do you any good.
well, that's what I get for replying before coffee. 
"You think Sacramento politics are bad? Try Redding politics."
"You think Sacramento politics are bad? Try Fresno politics."
"You think Sacramento politics are bad? Try LA politics."
"You think Sacramento politics are bad? Try San Diego politics."
I think this would put the fear of God into most people. 
There might be a few counties where Jefferson would win in a popular vote, but the logistics alone are nightmarish.
I mean, creating a bar association, or a DMV, or a state criminal justice system... Unless Butte and Humboldt wanted to join, we wouldn't even have a university. 
At least three of those "states" would lean repuke. 
Exhibit A: Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec3.html
There is no provision there for bypassing the legislature through a ballot initiative. FAIL.
then again, I'm not a con lawyer, or any kind of lawyer.
The Northern Border was drawn in 1819 between the US and Spain, while Spain was losing Mexico in Mexico's war of Independence. The US had not only sent Lewis and Clark to explode the then newly purchased Louisiana purchase but also what is now the Northwest for the US had claims to that area (as did Russia and Britain). Pike of Pike's of Pike's peak fame, was also sent at the same time as Lewis and Clark to explode the territory, and around Pike's Peak was promptly captured by a Spanish Patrol who told him to get out of Spanish Territory.
This dispute had existed since the time of the original French Settlement of Louisiana. It had become a non-point during the Spanish rule of Louisiana (1763-1803) but became a new headache when Spain sold it back to France, who then sold it to the USA.
The concern of the US was Texas not California so, the treaty was written to define the border of Texas along its Eastern border with Louisiana and along the Red River. No one really knew what was where so they said along the Red River to a Latitude that is the present day Eastern Border of the Panhandle of Texas. From that point on the Red along the present Eastern Border of Texas Panhandle till you reached the Arkansas River (The US had a good idea where the Arkansas river ran, thus demanded it as a US River). The line north reached the Arkansas river in present day south western Kansas. The Border then ran along the Arkansas River to a point short of the Rio Grande River then straight north. This was to keep the Rio Grande in 100% Spanish hands. Spain also had a good idea of the Rivers flowing into San Francisco Bay and picked a point north of such waters to keep such waters in Spanish hands. That line went East till it intersected with the line going north from the Arkansas River. Notice California Northern Border was determined by its rivers flowing into San Francisco Bay NOT any any rivers flowing into the sea North of San Francisco Bay.
The line picked cut mountains, Rivers and Native American Tribes without regard to how people in that area lived or even moved about for none of that was a concern to the American or Spanish negotiators at the time of the treaty,
That remained the border of the US till 1848, when the US fought a war with Mexico and had Mexico give up all claims to the present American Southwest (Except for the Gadsden Purchase in 1852, a purchase made necessary when it was discovered it contain the best Railroad Route from New Orleans to San Diego). The Southern Border of the present US was drawn as a line in the same, to keep the US out of the Gulf of Cortes, but retain a railroad line between New Orleans and San Diego (a line not built till the 1880s but within four years of the end of the War with Mexico it had been discovered the US had NOT drawn the line south enough in present day Arizona and New Mexico, they had missed the Gila River and its Valley.
Then in 1848, as the treaty was being signed, Gold was discovered in what had been the Russian Occupied part of California (Sutler of Sutler's mill fame had purchased the Mills from the Russian Fur Trading Company). Do to the success of the US Army in Mexico (Something the Duke of Wellington predicted would NOT happen, he lived till the 1850s), England decided to extend the Border it had agreed between the US and Canada over the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific, in turn the US gave up its claim to what is now British Columbia. AS part of the understanding the US had with Russia at that time, the US took over all Russian Claims on the West Coast south of Alaska.
Thus by 1848, what had been a disputed border had become fixed, but again a border drawn by people who had no knowledge of the area, Worse by 1850 do to the Gold Rush AND existing American population in California that had been growing since Mexico won its war of Independence in 1821 (an Increase do to Mexico's inability to send any troops to that area after the Spanish had left(, California meet the threshold for Statehood. This lead to the Compromise of 1850, for California under the Compromise of 1820 should have come in as a slave state, but no one in California wanted Slavery. Thus California wanted to come into the Union and meet all of the Requirements except they was no Slave Territory that could come in at the same time. Thus the compromise of 1850.
In terms of Borders, California's eastern border had been drawn by people in Washington who knew nothing of that part of California and no one wanted to pay surveyors to determine the top of the Sierra Madre Mountains (The True Eastern border of California), thus two lines were drawn in the sand and that became the border. It was a rush job, and given how the Compromise of 1850 was passed (no Majority for the Terms as a complete package, different majority for each of the five parts) the best you could hope for.
Thus Texas, in the compromise of 1850, could break itself into as many as four states, but California could not (Some people say Texas could still do so, but in the 1870s Congress tried to codified existing laws, and that offer seems to have been dropped during that attempt at codifications, in other words repealed along with a lot of other laws no longer deemed valid in the 1870s).
Thus the borders of California is a product of one accident after another. If actual FUNCTIONAL borders would be drawn, First you would put everything that drains into the San Francisco Bay, into one state. Anything that does not flow you have to look to see if it can be independent.
If you look at the map below, you will notice that the Green Center of California (on the map) reaches only 2/3rds down the state. This has been the traditional line mentioned in previous moves to divide California, and for the same reason I mentioned above, function follows water flows and in the center of California water flows to the San Fransisco bay.
Los Angles and San Diego are both SOUTH of the above and should be in a separate state.
Now, I am also for the EASTERN Border of both resulting States be the peak of the Mountains, and anything on the Eastern Side of those Mountains be given to Nevada.
AS to the Northern Border of California, the biggest problem is the Russia, Eel and Trinity Rovers. All flow into the Sea but not via the San Francisco Bay OR the Columbia River in Oregon. IF water flows into the Columbia that area should belong to Oregon, but that does NOT happen to any waters presently flowing in California. The Klamath flows into Oregon and then back out to the Trinity and then to the sea.
These three rivers are just are in many ways a no man's land between San Francisco and Portland, any of them could be with either city. On the other hand directly to the East of these three rivers are waters that flow into San Francisco Bay (Not true of the Klamath, but true of the rest of the rivers that flow into the Trinity River).
http://geology.com/lakes-rivers-water/california.shtml
Please note, the same comment as to "No Man's Lands" can be applied to the coastal areas of California between San Francisco and Los Angles. But if you go east from those areas you end up in an area that flows into the San Francisco Bay. Thus should be part of any State that includes San Francisco.
Thus the present Northern Border is defensible if are looking at function. California Eastern Border is not, that part East of the Mountains should be in Nevada. The only good division in the southern line I mentioned above, making Los Angles and San Diego a separate state. Given that both areas are dependent, in part, on water from the Colorado River you can make an argument that they should be part of Arizona. The argument against that is that the Area around the Salton Sea is almost uninhabited and a good border area, and Arizona would better staying with the Gila and Colorado Rivers (Yes, Las Vegas should be in Arizona, thus you would only have one state arguing over who gets what water from that river).
Just a comment on borders and California is to large, but it would be better to divide it into two states along water flows and transportation movement NOT to get more GOP Senators.
We're sparsely populated.