State of New California?

RX Reven' said:  I find the whole “if you don’t like it, leave” gesture well suited for a bumper sticker but that’s it. Look, I’m a moderate trying live peacefully in an ultra-liberal state…every day represents a tiring and stressful effort to remain undetected to avoid a tsunami of mockery and ridicule by self-proclaimed tolerant, inclusive people.  I know I’m not welcome here but this is where I was born (this is my home) and it’s incredibly beautiful and it would cost a fortune for me to leave (both qualitatively and quantitatively) so I live the life of an imposture ever fearful of being unmasked.

 

This is about where I am too.  California is bankrupt now, they just cook the books every year.  California is a lot more conservative than you would think, if  you take out LA and SF

Y'all should check out Arkansas.  Half the people here escaped from California.  I escaped in '79.

bentwrench said:

Look up the state of Jefferson.

 

Similar grumblings are happening in Oregon where 2 cities constitute an majority vote, essentially 2 cities are running the entire state. 

Washington state has it's east vs west rivalry and the talks to split it into two are near constant as far back as I can remember.  I've lived on both sides and they really are two very different worlds.  Trees, cities, and coast on the west.  Endless rolling wheat fields on the east. 

The state is largely conservative by square mileage, but leans liberal where the population majorities are.  It definitely makes the elections interesting...

Wait... I thought the plan was to eliminate states and just have a country. We have the technology people!! States came to be partly because people just couldn't get from city to city to govern effectively. 

One government.

Open your mind....Open your mind..... 

Central government is fine if the democracy is strong. 

Advan046 said:

Wait... I thought the plan was to eliminate states and just have a country. We have the technology people!! States came to be partly because people just couldn't get from city to city to govern effectively. 

One government.

Open your mind....Open your mind..... 

Central government is fine if the democracy is strong. 

People are individuals with different cultures and beliefs.  The only way "one government" can succeed is if it is sufficiently brutal and controlling as to destroy or prohibit the free expression of individual thought.  Human nature hasn't changed much in the 240-odd years since this country was founded.  We should give the excellent minds that crafted our Constitution the credit and respect they deserve.

In reply to 1988RedT2 :

But... But... Dead White Guys...  Some had SLAVES... and we can vote ourselves MOAR FREE E36 M3!!!  And central governments have WORKED SO WELL BEFORE.  Open Your Mind!!

Furious_E said:

In reply to markwemple :

berkeley you too buddy, see how you get along without the food, water, and other essential resources rural America provides. We're not all a bunch of hillbillies sitting on our front porches, pickin' banjos and collecting welfare checks all day either, people work for a living and pay taxes just like everyone else.

I disagree with Mark's tone, but I expect they would get along the same as they do now: sending money in exchange for goods and services.

In reply to 1988RedT2 :

I understand your view. One Government models have been corrupted many times in the past. However, usually they are failures due to their origin, by deadly force.

As individuals, we all have opinions. To take your view to the extreme we should have no government and just have everyone for themselves which I think will devolve to brutality and chaos as for some reason many people believe in taking until they are stopped as a way of being. Manifest Destiny and all. In fact, the whole idea mentioned by the OP of this thread, using your view, is localizing the oppression. I may like that the state of California does xyz but after the new state of North California is formed, they reverse xyz. Thus I am oppressed and must face their "brutal crackdown" on my formerly allowed freedom. 

I don't think this country is ready for one government yet. Too many people don't understand that teachers and farmers should be close to the highest paid and respected groups. People who sell stuff because of their singing, acting, abilities to do things with sports or looks, shouldn't get as much attention.

I would vote to double my city taxes if it all went to the public school system. I would vote to double my state taxes to fund good water, internet, and electricity service. I would vote to reduce government layers that all get a price of the tax pie just to get me those things. 

I hope to do my part to move our country to one successful government as that would mean we figured out the balance between freedom and common good. 

This happens about once every 3 or so years. Last time it was some Silicon Valley billionaire attempting to break it into seven states and concentrating most of the wealth into 2 or so if them. 

It isn't going to happen mostly because each time it's proposed most people can see it's a transparent ploy to concentrate wealth into a small region and gain more political power. Even when I lived in CA every time this came up you'd just scoff and go on your way. As much as each side likes to talk about how each side doesn't need the other, the fact of the matter is that they often do.

In reply to Dr. Hess :

We need a strong central government to control the 1% 

Power  comes from being rich and not everyone who is rich is benevolent.  Left to their own devices the rich will destroy the good to satisfy their greed.  

If you doubt me look at what happened to the CanAm. When Porsche developed the 917  it made all the other CanAm cars obsolete and basically killed the series. 

In reply to Advan046 :

Great points.  One thing that is occurring now is the vilifying of the opposite party and their points.  

We need both parties because no one group has everything right.  

For example welfare.  One party vilifies it and claims that’s the sole reason for the other party. Well obviously that’s not true.  What neither party seems to be able to explain is that welfare is simply the cheapest way to deal with the poor.  Modern welfare was invented by Kaiser Wilhelm following the 2nd rye famine. During the first famine the Kaiser locked up anyone caught stealing even if they were starving to death.  Looking back on the money he spent on police courts jails etc   The next rye famine he gave every family a modest amount and found the money he saved payed enough to modernize his military.  

In reply to frenchyd :

A strong central government never, ever controls the 1% (which is really more like 0.01%).  It is always the exact opposite.  The stronger the central government, the more it is controlled by the 1%.  Our own government is a case in point.  It has never been stronger or more controlled by the 1%.  Just look what happened when the PEOPLE elected a president not approved by the 1%.

People who love to point out that one form of (democratically based) government is better or worse than another need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.  Any form of government from a Monarchy to a Parliamentary democracy to a Socialist republic to a dictatorship to our own Republic need to accept that no matter what their favorite is, it can be, and most likely has been, co-opted by an elite.

Here in the US no matter what side of the isle you sit it's hard to argue that:

• We've been taken over by special interest buying votes.
• Many many states have been gerrymandered into being, especially at the state level and to a lesser degree at the Federal level, solidly red or blue while proportional representation would have a very different make up of Congress.
• It can be argued that the Electoral collage has ended up as an unintended form of Gerrymandering when twp of the last five (40%) General elections have elected a President who lost the popular vote.
• The 24 hour news cycle and 'Fake News' (on both sides, I'm not pointing fingers) leaves millions of people from both party feeling increasingly disenfranchised, especially in States where 'their view' is strongly in the minority.
• I don't think anyone realistically thinks a single central government and dissolution of States or State governments is in any way feasible or realistic

Adrian_Thompson said:

People who love to point out that one form of (democratically based) government is better or worse than another need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.  Any form of government from a Monarchy to a Parliamentary democracy to a Socialist republic to a dictatorship to our own Republic need to accept that no matter what their favorite is, it can be, and most likely has been, co-opted by an elite.

Here in the US no matter what side of the isle you sit it's hard to argue that:

• We've been taken over by special interest buying votes.
• Many many states have been gerrymandered into being, especially at the state level and to a lesser degree at the Federal level, solidly red or blue while proportional representation would have a very different make up of Congress.
• It can be argued that the Electoral collage has ended up as an unintended form of Gerrymandering when twp of the last five (40%) General elections have elected a President who lost the popular vote.
• The 24 hour news cycle and 'Fake News' (on both sides, I'm not pointing fingers) leaves millions of people from both party feeling increasingly disenfranchised, especially in States where 'their view' is strongly in the minority.
• I don't think anyone realistically thinks a single central government and dissolution of States or State governments is in any way feasible or realistic 

Gerrymandering has been with America for a very long time. It is the worst  form of power theft.   81%  of the population lives in cities or suburbs  yet rural states pretty much determine who we even get to elect. Iowa. New Hampshire etc?  

As for special interests they don’t so much buy the votes as get out the votes. Religion seems to have the best of that in  spite of the view out forefathers had of religion. It’s extremely easy to sway votes from the pulpit. 

Dr. Hess said:

In reply to frenchyd :

A strong central government never, ever controls the 1% (which is really more like 0.01%).  It is always the exact opposite.  The stronger the central government, the more it is controlled by the 1%.  Our own government is a case in point.  It has never been stronger or more controlled by the 1%.  Just look what happened when the PEOPLE elected a president not approved by the 1%.

Look at the top 5. Bill Gates gives equally to both parties to ensure access to decision makers regardless of who’s in office. 

Warren Buffit doesn’t see a return on contributions except in extremely limited cases.  

The Koch brothers (3&4)  sometimes ( 2&3)  contribute massively to conservative causes such as as tea party or they transform previously liberal causes to conservative. I refer to both the environmental defense fund and Minnesota Public radio. 

McMillian  while he has always supported conservative causes he is shrewd enough to know when to donate to others if they will accommodate his needs. 

Want further proof?  

There are over 77,000 pages in the current tax code  Not to mention legal prescient.  The only pages affected in the most recent tax bill are those effecting most working citizens.  

For example.  Private Use of corporate jets is a tax deduction for the 1% but your average working stiff cannot deduct a vacation trip.   

Adrian_Thompson said:

• It can be argued that the Electoral collage has ended up as an unintended form of Gerrymandering when twp of the last five (40%) General elections have elected a President who lost the popular vote.

Not really, it works exactly as designed

We have a city within a town by the same name.  I once asked my father why this was.  He said that towns were formed when communication was slow and were not needed today. "Today" being nearly 50 years ago.

We still have them although the state is pushing for more consolidation.

Happening glacier slow.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson :

I actually think we could get to a single government model. At a minimum the effort and activities required to try to get there would be beneficial. 

What would be necessary to make you feel comfortable that corruption was combatted enough to be ok with a single government? Should we try to do those things now regardless if it led to a single government or not?

One needs to be careful with statements like "lost the popular vote".  There really isn't any such thing in the US, the news reports that talk about it are just adding together the individual states' popular votes, and that is NOT the same thing.  States that lean heavily one way or the other tend to discourage people on the opposite side from bothering to go vote, because they don't see any point.  This is reinforced by the fact that the candidates and parties know the rules and odds as well, so they focus their "get out the vote" campaign efforts on states where they think it might make a difference.

Similarly, states that are further west have polls that close hours after those on the east cost, and those results have been announced on national TV.  If the election looks like it's already been decided, people in western states often don't bother to go vote.   (This is dumb, because there are plenty of local elections still to vote on, but that doesn't stop people).  This article has a map of 2016 presidential voter turnout percentage by state, and it's pretty clear that, in general, the further west you go, the lower the turnout.

If the presidential election was changed to a national popular vote and TV stations stopped reporting results until ALL the polls had closed, those incentives would change, and a lot of people would bother to go vote that might not otherwise.  That could have very significant effects on "the national popular vote".  So yes, Clinton got more individual votes than Trump did, but given the current rules that doesn't mean anything, and by their very nature those rules influence the number of individual votes that are cast.

In reply to Advan046 :

There are NO circumstances that would cause me to favor a "single government model."  Truly, we need to dismantle the federal government as it exists today and cede to it only those functions spelled out in the Constitution.  ALL other functions of government should be handled at the state and local level.

1988RedT2 said:

In reply to Advan046 :

There are NO circumstances that would cause me to favor a "single government model."  Truly, we need to dismantle the federal government as it exists today and cede to it only those functions spelled out in the Constitution.  ALL other functions of government should be handled at the state and local level.

They tried that once.  It failed. 

frenchyd said:

In reply to Advan046 :

Great points.  One thing that is occurring now is the vilifying of the opposite party and their points.  

We need both parties because no one group has everything right.  

For example welfare.  One party vilifies it and claims that’s the sole reason for the other party. Well obviously that’s not true.  What neither party seems to be able to explain is that welfare is simply the cheapest way to deal with the poor.  Modern welfare was invented by Kaiser Wilhelm following the 2nd rye famine. During the first famine the Kaiser locked up anyone caught stealing even if they were starving to death.  Looking back on the money he spent on police courts jails etc   The next rye famine he gave every family a modest amount and found the money he saved payed enough to modernize his military.  

 

"Welfare is simply the cheapest way to deal with the poor”. That statement would be true if people acted consistently regardless of changes taking place around them.  This, however, isn’t how it works…instead, people live their lives constantly weighing the pros and cons associated with the various options before them.

The more bread you give away, the less compelled people are to get their a$$ out of bed each morning when the alarm goes off in their cold, dark bedroom. Additionally, the more bread you give away, the more you must take from those that did get their a$$ out of bed which reduces the likelihood that they’ll bother to get their a$$ up tomorrow.

I really like what you said towards the beginning of your post “we need both parties”. Boy is that ever true…we don’t want a world where we collectively say “didn’t work today – Berk you starve” but we also don’t want a world where we collectively lie to ourselves by pretending that the cold hard realities of the human experience (specifically that we’re inherently lazy, calculating, selfish things) aren’t the case; of course they are.

1988RedT2 said:

In reply to Advan046 :

There are NO circumstances that would cause me to favor a "single government model."  Truly, we need to dismantle the federal government as it exists today and cede to it only those functions spelled out in the Constitution.  ALL other functions of government should be handled at the state and local level.

I am open to learn what local government does that couldn't be done by a single government. To your point the Constitution actually sets the framework. 

I study processes and organization systems as a big part of my career. Over the past 15 years or so, there is always someone that thinks the Constitution is some perfect thing. Any 18th century document defining roles and structure is probably not a good choice to use in the 21st century without lots of changes/revisions/amendments. If you want to only use the part of it that makes sense to you, then that is also a change/revision/amendment. Saying the federal government should only do what is in the Constitution is to say we should have the same government as today. I would guess your concerns lay within the fringe edges of the Federal/State government interface and how functions are divided there. 

Many times I have tried to get a division or branch manager to realize that the system they hate is the one they say they want. And getting them to go beyond the "just limit it to the 50 year old business handbook" and actually identify the improvements they want and be open to destroying the 50 year handbook and living with the 1 month old handbook they are about to create. 

Annie have spent a lot, I repeat, a lot, of time in SoCal over the last 25 years. We've seen the change. It really is the consequences of the State legislature. It has made an abrupt change. I won't give an opinion as to why, because that would be considered ... well, it would be considered what's wrong with what's going on in this country today. (So was that politically correct and vague enough so that this thread doesn't get locked?). California, especially SoCal is very, very special. Especially for car people. But for politiclal reasons it's changing. Changing for something which I'm afraid we're (as U.S. citizens), aren't going to like. I'm nearly 70. I've got maybe another ten years visiting SoCal. After that I don't care what happens. But it won't be good.

OK, after having said what I just said, it really depends on what's going on in Sacremento. Who's electing the people in the State legislature? Everybody I've talked to in SoCal over the years doesn't agree with what's going on there. That's a problem. Who is electing these people? I think I know the answer, and the good citizens of California know the answer, based on what I've heard. Sacremento needs to reflect the wishes of the real populace. Something is wrong. Where are the balls? California doesn't need to be a "new country." That's absurd. Tax-paying California residents need representation in Sacremento that represents their interests. That's not the case now. How did that not happen?