Would anything be accomplished if Texas split into 5 states?

[Taverner]

Chances are the Hill Country might go blue

Chances are Southern Texas would go blue as well

But anything can happen in Texas, anything

[ladjf]

1. It would give them eight additional Senators. I don't think that would

be good for the Country. nt

[Taverner]

4. Didn't think of that...

Yes, bad, very bad

[w8liftinglady]

2. Joe Barton's district ( mine ) would remain RED.

trust me- they will gerrymander how the state is split up...if it were to happen.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. I suppose if Tom Delay got to draw the lines, it would look like a large dish of pasta.

[Taverner]

5. LOL I like that...

"Ya see, this district goes right through Houston, but only is comprised of people living on the 4th and 5th floors of high rises, and then stops and continues on in Dallas, but only those with basements..."

[scheming daemons]

6. 8 more RW senators and 4 more RW governors... are you nuts?

[ejpoeta]

7. it would screw up the flag. and the number of states.

[Walk away]

8. They would have to split up that extra 2 Billion Dollars they took home...

in Federal Taxes last year! I'd rather see them secede....It'll cost less.

[Taverner]

9. Yeah but my guess is that the Blue Texans won't let it go down without a fight

Although I would look forward to seeing Rick Perry getting caught in the crossfire...

[krispos42]

10. I've had this idea before

Basically, the idea that once a state's ratio of reps-to-senators passed 6:1, the state would have to evenly split by the next census.

California into 5 states.

Texas, Florida, and New York into 3.

A handful of others (New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, a few others) into 2 states.


I figured we'd jump from 50 to 67 states with the first round of splitting, then gradually add states as our population grew.


It would lessen the problem of our country's politics being dominated by sparsely-populated rural states. They would still have an edge, but it would be less so.


:shrug:

[Taverner]

11. California is only really three states

Four if you partition off the Central Valley

But you've got Northern California, The Bay Area and Central Coast, Southern California and San Diego and , well the Central Valley like I said earlier.

[krispos42]

23. They'd have to figure something out.

See my post below.

[marginlized]

12. How do you figure?

Most of the population lives in big cities. Therefore, many if not most of these additional states are bound to be rural and sparsely populated. Or are you proposing that we split the cities between adjacent states?

See what trouble you get into if your politics are based on simple ratios like reps:senators = 6:1, when the issue is the kind and amount of power given to the Senate, a body that originally was not even meant to be subject to popular elections?

[krispos42]

20. The split would have to be voted on by the population as a whole

It would be a multi-year process as the boundries were debated and settled.

Remember, state would have to split evenly by population. California currently has 51 reps, so they would have to split into 4 states with 10 reps each (about 7.3 million each) and one state with 11 reps (about 8 million).

Probably the states would balkanize around the major metro areas (SF, LA, SD), the northern part of the state, and the Central Valley/Sierra Nevada Mountains range area.

:shrug:

But I'm not a California expert.

[21st Century FDR]

18. Would splitting up California really do anything good

Right now there are two Democratic senators (at least in theory - not sure about Feinstein at times) and some of the reps in the House are certainly questionable at times (i.e. Jane Harman) but what happens if you create a new state where Orange County or San Diego dominate the population. Those aren't rural areas, but they are right wing strongholds.

[krispos42]

22. I don't know, in the near future.

We have to think long-term. And the RWers in California are probably different in notable ways from the rural, ex-Confederate RWers that run the Republican party.

I do know that the people of California and other large states would be represented better and be less bullied by small rural states with a combined population of less than one metro area.

These new states would also have to enact new constitutions to run them... which means we can institute much better state governments and statewide elections. How about, say, instant-runoff voting in a state's constitution?

Those constitutions would be fresh slates to work with! Something we haven't had since the 1950's.

[Taverner]

24. San Diego is weird

City of San Diego and County of San Diego are two distinct beasts

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. The current system was designed to give less populated states an even voice

Something I tend to agree with somedays, others not.

If we were to take the ultimate version of your approach, we could go to a single elected body

[krispos42]

27. I understand that

It was to keep the small states from being abused by the big states, and that sounds like a good idea to me. Small states should not be plundered by the big states.

However, it can work the other way, too. This does not make the rural states less powerful than populous states, it just makes the advantage of the rural states somewhat less.

Our current system of agriculture and transportation allows vast quantities of people to live in very small areas, which can distort the system to the point of gridlock.

Consider: in 2009 and 2010, the Republicans in the Senate were busy filibustering pretty much everything. After the election of Scott Brown, they had 41 votes in the Senate, but those 41 Senators only represented about 34% of the population. Yet, they were able to grind the lawmaking body of the United States to a virtual halt.

Now, obviously, the Senate filibuster rule was aiding and abetting this disparity. But if we had 134 senators instead of 100, the filibuster threshold would be 53. Could that have been reached if today's Californians has been represented by 10 senators instead of 2? Today's Texan, Floridians, and New Yorkers by 6 each instead of 2 each?

I don't know. But it would have been harder. And the filibustering Senators would have represented a lot more than 34% of the population.


By adding new states as the population grows (even if the physical size of the country doesn't), it also gives a the opportunity to add progressive ideas to the constitutions of the new states. Things like... constitutionally-mandated universal health coverage, or instant-runoff voting, or campaign finance reform, etc.

[Stevenmarc]

13. How about just giving it back to Mexico

[Speck Tater]

14. Or split the USA into 50 separate countries. nt

[Taverner]

19. I actually wonder if that would be a good idea

I mean, the USSR broke up, and they've made up for lost time

Break the USA up into four countries - or perhaps fifty - and we won't have Holder shutting down pot clubs in Oakland, and we won't have Red States sucking cash from the productive republics

[Horse with no Name]

15. The HILL COUNTRY BLUE???

Oh my...music to my ears.

But the geographical split would be interesting, to say the least.

[damntexdem]

16. Yeah, it would further GOP chances in the Senate.

Even if two of the five went completely blue, the GOP would have a 6-4 advantage, the same 2 up they have now. But it's more likely that So Tex and Hill Country would split and elect at least one Repuke, while the rest would be solid red.

[hack89]

17. Give them 8 more senators? What do you think? nt

[BillStein]

26. and also 8 more electoral votes nt

[WinkyDink]

21. Only if they became part of Mexico.