Should California Secede?

Forget the jokes that the Right tells that we'd all be better off without California... at least they told these jokes when Grey Davis was in office. It's simply NOT true. But can a state the size of California EVER be fairly treated in an anti-democratic federal system such as we have in the US? What are the implications if it cannot be?

US federalism is a study in GROSS inequality. It's a system where individual citizens are given grossly disproportionate power in the federal government based merely on state residence. It was the nation's first affirmative action program. Yet those who are disenfranchised MUST pay the same level of taxes as their more fortunate countrymen. This gross inequality is most evident in comparing the political power of a citizen in California to one in Wyoming.

POLITICAL POWER

The 2000 Census reports California remains the most populous state

with 33,831,648 and Wyoming remains the least populated with

493,782.... 1/68 than that of California.

In the new apportionment scheme California gets 53 seats.... one seat for every 638,333 people...... Wyoming one seat for 49,3783. Sources below.

The Senate remains at 2 seats each.

In the Electoral College California gets 55 votes and Wyoming 3 votes.

If my math is correct, this breaks down as follows:

Remember that since citizens vote only for representatives of their DISTRICT.. not their state... each Wyoming resident has 20% more representation in the House of Representatives over any given citizen in California simply because they are guaranteed one seat but lack the population to make up a normal-sized congressional district.

Each Wyoming resident has 68.5 times more influence in the Senate over any given citizen in California. Each Wyoming resident has 3.7 times more influence in electing a President over any given citizen in California.

If we were to average this out... granted this is NOT a perfect exercise... each Wyoming resident has 24 TIMES more influence in the Federal government over any given citizen in California.... yet BOTH pay equal rates of federal taxes. Federalist theory purports that somehow the Great Compromise of the Constitutional Convention which created the House and Senate levels things out. The theory is that if the state of California has 53 seats in Congress and Wyoming has but one... then California has 53 times the power, at least in the House. But congressmen do NOT represent states... only the people in the districts who elect them. The federalist formula disenfranchises US citizens in large states and hands out power and privilege to US citizens in small states. The math above paints a more accurate picture. A natural side effect of this formula is it can create morally illegitimate minority government as we now have with the Bush Junta.

In decisions such as Reynolds v Simms, the USSC has proclaimed that "one person one vote" mean little when votes are not weighted the same. In this nation which claims equality under the law.... anyone see any evidence of this here except for taxation? This equality is illegal on the state and local levels but perfectly legal on the federal level under our anti-democratic Constitution.

FEDERAL TAXATION & SPENDING

One study at http://www.nemw.org/fedspend99.pdf (I hope it's still up)

http://www.nemw.org/fedspend99.pdf> reported for FY 99 that while the per capita federal tax burden in California and Wyoming are about the same.... $6841 and $6843 respectably, the average per capita federal spending on the people of Wyoming is $6080 while in California it's $5010. California gets back only about 89 cents on every federal tax dollar it contributes to the federal government. Given California's size... the numbers are quite large. If my math is correct

$6841 - 5010 = $1830.

$1830 X 33,831,648 = $61,911,915,840 billion net loss.

That means that

281,421,906 (total US population in 2000) - 33,831,648 = 247,590,258

US population excluding California.

247,590,258 / $61,911,915,840 = $250

California "contributes" on average $250 to every other US citizen.

California, if it were a nation would be the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world. It has natural resources... ports... a well developed infrastructure... wealth... it could make it on its own. Despite what the rabid right thinks, we as a nation need California more than they need us. I'm unsure what the Constitutional hurdles are, but I believe that California should seriously consider seceding
from the Union.... NOT because I'd like to see the US break apart... but only to wake the rest of us up to the inherent inequalities of our federal system which is not just producing morally illegitimate government as we have seen in Election 2000... but is virtually reform proof and getting more so. Currently states representing only about 4% of the US population can theoretically block ALL reform to the US Constitution desired by the other 96%.

SOURCES

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab04.txt

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab01.txt

As a state it should have 1/50th of the power, as should all states.

That is why there is equal representation in the Senate. But everywhere else the vote should be equal.

I'm well aware why we have a Senate... and given the politics of the Constitutional Convention... and the select groups who were invited... our anti-democratic Constitution was the best they could agree on. Curious how these heroic figures seemed to prioritize protecting THEIR rights. The Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution and was demanded by the state ratifying conventions. Even then we know that slavery was protected and all by propertied white males could vote.

How long as we going to be mired in the politics of 1787? We have our own politics now... and the moral basis of SOME US citizens who choose to live in small states getting extra power at the expense of other citizens MUST be questioned. Why that group and not others? Are there not better ways to protect minority rights WITHOUT running the risk of another Bush Junta being imposed upon the nation?

I believe you need to rethink some basic political principles.... like the meaning of the line from the Declaration of Independence: government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Gee... can that mean that without that consent.... a government is morally illegitimate? Isn't that the natural byproduct of an anti-democratic system that you support?

How about you try to bring about a true direct democracy, for it is the only way true democracy can be restored. It seems like you are preaching for the lesser of two evils in your view.

Also you need to look into why such a disparity exists between representation of the states. To have truly equal representation a state like South Dakota would not even have a representative with our current house structure. And if you would change the structure there would need to be something like 620 people in the house. Just what we need is to be paying another 300 people 150k a year as an elected congressman/woman. I'm all for the removal of the electoral college, but the congress is set up the way it is for a definite reason, a reason that stands through time.

truhavoc "If you want call what we have now anti-democratic How about you try to bring about a true direct democracy, for it is the only way true democracy can be restored. It seems like you are preaching for the lesser of two evils in your view."

And just what is your definition of "pure democracy".

"Also you need to look into why such a disparity exists between representation of the states."

I know full well the historical rationale for this system. What I'm saying is that that we need to move past what we learned in 4th grade history that the Framers were all wise and devised some perfect system that has withstood the test of time. Our historical myths MUST be challenged.... especially if the system at its best have become dysfunctional... depriving nearly 50% of the people of representation leading to pathetically low voter turnout... and at its worst can inflict morally illegitimate minority government on the American People.

"To have truly equal representation a state like South Dakota would not even have a representative with our current house structure. And if you would change the structure there would need to be something like 620 people in the house. Just what we need is to be paying another 300 people 150k a year as an elected congressman/woman."

I'm well aware that the Constitution guarantees each state, regardless of population, at least one representative. Some states do not have the population that equals an average district in a large state. That is a lesser issue compared to each state having equal representation in the Senate... or that anti-democratic abomination... that unaccountable Star Chamber called the EC.

"I'm all for the removal of the electoral college, but the congress is set up the way it is for a definite reason, a reason that stands through time."

The ONLY reason we have the Senate and EC... and a reform proof Constitution is because the small state drove a hard bargain at the Constitutional Convention. In the process democratic principles were compromised away. I don't agree that we can continue in our collective coma excusing the defects in this arrangement... especially since it should be painfully obvious after election 2000 that it FAILS to guarantee the American People morally legitimate government.

while siphoning our federal tax dollars. If California and the Northwest, certain Midwestern states, or the Northeast seceded, we could let the rest of the country live in their little fundamentalist Christian theocracy. That's what they want-and I'm getting sick of them forcing their agenda on the us rational folks.

I also believe we need a larger Federal Government so we can have a fully Federal nation. I want state government reduced to pure intermediaries between the people and the Federal Government.

I don't want my tax money going to 'faith-based' soup kitchens and 'faith-based' homeless shelters. If these differences persist, the only natural progression is to secede. Let's hope the 'faith-based' states decide to secede again.

That is not something that is exclusive to Californians.

a looser federation would be a preferable form of government. And who knows? In 20 or 30 years, maybe that's exactly what we'll have- regional integration with a "small is beautiful" approach. One can only hope.

I'll be the first to join a group of states that seceds to get the hell away from the fascist theocrats so they can have their damn religious dictatorship and leave the rest of us in peace.

OhioStateProgressive wrote "I don't want California ruling our government. As a state it should have 1/50th of the power, as should all states."

Why? What is the moral justification for placing artificial legal entities above citizens rights? I think you're a classic case of a mind mired in the politics of 1787. You view national politics as a clash of state interests. So sad. Yet as a someone claiming to be a Progressive... you are embracing a system that works against your agenda. There are reasons why the US is so far behind the other advanced democracies... and maybe next time you look in the mirror you'll see one of those reasons.

I don't want California deciding national politics because it is a fucked up state.

Leftists more worried about saving trees than developing a Socialist state.

Ever been here? Ever talked to us? Perhaps you get your opinion from what the folks in the east think of us? Arnold for governor doesn't say much for us, granted, but we're a lot more complex than that. I'm thinking perhaps California (and arizona, new mexico, texas, colorado, nevada) should go 'right back where we started from' - rejoin Mexico.

I have been to California a couple of times. I enjoyed it. But I also know it doesn't represent my values.

about this place, it's the amazing diversity. And that's something we value very highly indeed. You'd be welcome here, were you able to be open to it. You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical on that point.

but the numbers don't lie...there are millions upon millions that DON'T share those values, and by the numbers alone they can trump the vision of the world I see.

That being said I will go to California again, and I will enjoy it.:)

doesn't represent my values.

what about all the progressives that live HERE in california!!?

care to elaborate?

I'm thinking perhaps California (and arizona, new mexico, texas, colorado, nevada) should go 'right back where we started from' - rejoin Mexico.

So you're in favoring of making us become even more polluted, corrupt, inequitable and monocultural?

Thanks, but no thanks.

OhioStateProgressive wrote: "I don't want California deciding national politics because it is a fucked up state. Leftists more worried about saving trees than developing a Socialist state."

Whatever. I was hoping you were going to make some sense. And just what is Socialism? If you can't find some way to break though the 200 year old legal roadblocks the Constitution places in your path.... you're lucky that there will ever be even a Democrat in the Whitehouse again. Yet you embrace the system that prevents change. Curious.

I did make a less than honorable statement, but a troll I am not.

I don't feel California and I share the exact same view of the world.

In California I see peopel who are worried about how they look.

People who work out and think out of shape people are bad.

etc.

generalizations I know, but I see alot of leftism getting wasted on environmental issues before the Socialist state has even been created.

Priorities.

is the number one issue. We may not be here to create a better world if we don't make this a priority.

Thanks for your comments. I haven't heard similar thoughts for 20 plus years. I always believed we overcame many of the divisions on the left, but I guess not.

I grew up in the mountains of Western Pennsylvania.

I am an environmentalist.

But what is a nice green earth without all people having the wealth and resource to take part in it?

You make multiple extreme generalizations. Second, I don't see where he called you a troll. Ad hominen is considered bad form by most people debating, as is poisoning the well.

Just some thoughts from a Californian who is supposed to be too concerned with his IMAGE.

I suppose I should have edited my post after that person edited theirs, but rest assured I was called a troll.

Secondly I stand by what I said.

So you are going to stand by your uninformed opinion based on only a few visits to this state compared to people who have lived here our whole lives?

I am basing it on a few things...

My personal perception and feeling...much more important than any set of existential facts and numbers. A belief that we shouldn't glorify buildings and parking lots and cities. A belief that excess, in all forms, is counter productive to building a society founded on equality for all.

So no, a state that has Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Beverly Hills...etc,etc,etc, generally does not have my confidence as to me liking the idea of them having more representation as I do.

So thus you have a perception that is not based on personal experience. I'm not quoting facts and numbers, I'm talking about my own personal experience. About a state that is, compared to the rest of the US, on the cutting edge of technology. Biotechnology firms and research as well as medical R&D is the furthest ahead in San Diego county alone than the rest of the country, not to mention your much hated Silicone Valley led the technological revolution of the 90s, as did the rest of this state.

On top of you dismissing us because of Hollywood and Beverly Hills, you seem to be forgetting about fine places like San Francisco. I don't think there are any mayors out in Ohio that have a tenth of the guts to do what Newsom is DOING. We have the highest concentration of not only gays of any state in the country but also the highest concentration of Wiccans and Pagans. We have more than our fair share of artist colonies, so to speak, or have you not heard of Laguna Beach or the multiple Renaissance Faire companies in the state in that you can have at least 8 faires a year within 4 hour driving distance of wherever you are. Lets not forget that we have more Native Americans than any other state, and by and large far more tribes.

Not to mention that our public university system is, hands down, the best public university system in the country, with UCLA and UC Berkeley rating in the top ten in the country of universities, and I'm not even going into Stanford and USC, as they would sway us even further up. We also have the MOST AND BEST pro-labour laws in the country, in case you haven't forgotten, along with the best environmental protections.

Let's also not forget that we produce the bulk of this country's fruits and nuts as well as a huge chunk of other agricultural products, not to mention cotton. And maybe it didn't occur to you that working out on a regualr basis isn't just good for you image, it's healthy.

Politically, we have two DEMOCRATS in the Senate, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS at that, not to mention a huge Congressional delegation of mostly Democrats of the progressive mold. The majority of our House Delegation was opposed to the war, along with Senator Boxer. And lets not forget that the current House Minority Leader is a SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

Can Ohio claim ANYTHING like that?

i think you need to do a little more research before opining so strongly about a state you clearly know little about.

When I first saw his posts I thought he was a troll... then I looked at the number of his posts and realized he wasn't a newbie... so I edited the word out. I was surprised anyone caught the comment when it was only up for a minute or so. Compared to Usenet... things here move at lightening speed.

'California' does not have a single viewpoint. Have you been all over this state? I'm willing to bet you haven't -- Los Angeles and Santa Rosa and Eureka and Sacramento and Bakersfield and San Diego (to use a few examples) are all very different places politically, economically, and even 'morally'. Hell, within Los Angeles alone you've got a million different ideals happening.

You're judging us on media portrayal, i.e. gym rats who can't bear to look anything less than perfect. Take a closer look next time you visit, please.

In fact, my county is full of white, right-wing fundies. It's more like it was transported from somewhere in the bible belt.

California is one of the most diverse places on earth. Saying, "Californians are __________" is untrue no matter what you place in the blank.

If you did I may debate you on this. But if you didn't you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.

It doesn't matter who he voted for or supported, he can still discuss this. Saying what you did is a total cop-out and on top of that is total Bush-logic ie "You're either with us or against us."

Kucinich is the only one talking about runoff voting, and proportional representation.

Therefore I will not take criticism on this subject who didn't even supprt the person who would have brought about those reforms.

Thanks for your effort though.

So you won't listen to criticism on a subject from someone who doesn't agree with you?

That's ok, but unsound thinking. By the way, I worked for and will be working for the Green Party again, and they have done more that Kucinich ever did for proportional representation and runoff voting. They're only part of the party platform.

I belong to the Ohio Green Party, so I won't take criticism on that point either.

If you do something that draws criticism, you will get it. You are not god, don't act like it.

And it looks like, based on what I've seen of the Green Party primaries, a CALIFORNIAN by the name of Peter Miguel Camejo is winning. What do you think of THAT?

I congratulate him.

I am choosing not be a Green Party member for the General Election this year.

and a good chunk of it's economy.

You make a very crude generalization of a place you've only visited. \

I did and admitted as much.

But I still don't support California having more collective power than any other state.

I support states having NO rights, and NO power...only Federal power.

misdirected left in this country. As a Californian, I'm just as frustrated by all the fringe, loopy shit that's been tacked onto the left as you are. It annoys the hell out of me when basic labor issues and social support programs take a back seat to animal rights and such.

let's drink on a united left:toast:

That isn't how the founders envisioned this country, and on a functional level, it would be a BAD idea to have JUST federal government. The state and local governments are in there to serve 1.) as further checks in the system and 2.) to serve the citizens better. Having JUST a federal government in this country as vast and diverse as it is won't work, there are too many differences among the people and in the distribution of resources and such. You CANNOT govern Ohio in the same way you govern California or Alabama. It simply would not work. That is if nothing else a good reason to KEEP the state governments.

However, I didn't ask.

I gave my response and that's all you have to say? Seems like you can't argue with it if that is all you have to say.

I gave my opinion on the matter, that is the end of it. I am not about to "debate" it, I believe it.

I don't post on message boards to defend what I believe, only to state it.

Life is defensive.

Why do you state it? Can you not take criticism of your beliefs?

1+1=2...same logic

I don't want California deciding national politics because it is a fucked up state.

As Homer would say,"It's funny cause it's true".

Then you won't have to deal with us at all. I am so sick of having to live with the decisions of these red neck states.

Thank God SOMEBODY is worried about the environment...not the White House that's for sure. I don't want a socialist goverment.

So I guess that about sums it up.

It's just a hypothetical question I suppose but as a native Californian, a tempting one. Who needs the red state baggage? We float states like Mississippi, we get back less than 80 cents for ever dollar we give the Feds and they get back more than a dollar.

I love the idea of the COUNTRY of California. We have the economy to sustain it too. Can you imagine Alabama being a country?

This system makes my vote almost worthless in national elections. It's not right. It's always seemed unfair to me.

And every other state.

Not about State's Rights. I think CA would have like, the eighth biggest economy in the world if this were to happen.

I said that giving California more congressman could effectively make it a states rights issue.

The post was about that as well, at least I took it that way.

I disagree with secession, I posted that as well...I wsa just trying to give my entire viewpoint of all parts of the issue.

K8-EEE wrote: "Suceeding Means, CA Would Rule Ourselves, Not You. It's just a hypothetical question I suppose but as a native Californian, a tempting one. Who needs the red state baggage? We float states like Mississippi, we get back less than 80 cents for ever dollar we give the Feds and they get back more than a dollar.

According to this study... California gets back about 89 cents on the dollar... but given California's huge econimy... that amount is huge. As for Mississippi... it gets $1.71 back for every dollar it contributes to the nation.

It does have 12% of the population, nearly one out of eight people in this country live in California. Shouldn't the power be propotional to the size of the state?

either that or expell texas/Florida

divide ourselves up further into a little patchwork quilt of little fiefdoms, freestates, grand duchy-duchies and so forth...

I'm willing to bet...ask any freeper type "should America become like the Holy Roman Empire" and the answer would be YES!

(sarcasm)

Bosnia Slovenia, Croatia, Panama,Taiwan

This is obviously a mental exercise so I think that the origional plan of the Connecticut compromise is good. CA is just so big and some states are so small that I'd split CA into north/south and combine the Dakotas. I wouldn't look at big states like Wyoming or Maontana or small "origional" states like CT, RI or DE. DC would be part of MD.

Here's an old MoJo article from 1998

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/01/lind_DUP2.html

cecede. This state is way too big with too many varying political views. North California
South California
or
Upper California--U.C.
Lower California--L.C. (not to be confussed with the Carolinas.) or
New California
and California...........rolls right off the tongue.
lol

The Central part is kinda wacky. I say, state of So CA (THAT'S ME!) wacky state of central fog belt, and groovy luv state of No CA.

That's a good idea!

Why don't you move there yourself. That way you will be the one in the driver's seat. Don't forget to report back how much better off you are with all that power.

Oh man. That's the funniest thing I've heard all week.

Thinking s/he was profound, Hammie wrote: ""If Wyomians get such a sweet deal. Why don't you move there yourself. That way you will be the one in the driver's seat. Don't forget to report back how much better off you are with all that power."

Why should anyone be required move to a different part of the country just to achieve the civic equality that should be each citizen's birthright? What's you're next brilliant suggestion? Love it or leave it?

is that you Google April 9, 1865. That is the date when the question over whether states had the right to secede was settled once and for all. You might also want to check out what was the body count on that little constitutional dispute.

If you still don't get it, then by all means secede, just give me a chance to get out of here first. I'll be in Wyoming watching the leaders of "ulTRAX's Rebellion" being shot down in the street like dogs on my satellite TV.

Hammie wrote "My next brilliant suggestion is that you Google April 9, 1865. That is the date when the question over whether states had the right to secede was settled once and for all. You might also want to check out what was the body count on that little constitutional dispute."

If you read my other posts I never said I want California to secede. But I would not mind a realistic threat of secession. That entails a legitimate grievance and a realistic possibility of being independent. What I really want is some way to shake the American People out of their collective delusion that the Framers of the Constitution were infallible geniuses. The reality is we now have a virtually reform-proof Constitution that is not just anti-democratic but getting more so. A Constitution that can produce morally illegitimate minority government as we now have with the Bush Junta.

Given that even after election 2000... most Democrats have a mindless belief that this defective human document was handed down on a slab... you get an idea that if there's EVER to be reform... it will not come without some sort of shock therapy.

I think it should immediately be invaded by the Armed Forces of the United States of America. During the invasion large swathes of property should be destroyed and most of the major Californian cities should be leveled. After California is crushed an occupation government should be put in place for 15 to 20 years until the rebellious Californians have been properly Reconstructed and can be allowed to handle their own affairs again. Then we should spend the next 150 years teaching our children that anyone who supported Californian independence for any reason was a traitor to the United States and should have their names blotted out for all eternity.

Didnt turn out to well for the seceeders.

Besides, the (gun) Control zealots have pretty much disarmed Calfornia anyway. California will be easy pickens.

How many guns does it take to wipe out the NYSE or sieze control of all the nukes in the country?

None, if you know some good hackers, and of those we have plenty. This ain't the 19th century anymore boys and girls, and technology can do some very nasty things.

ON EDIT: Also, you can use the same trick to destroy all the bank accounts of every non-Californian in the US and then follow up on the FDIC shortly thereafter. We don't need guns to win, we can always just nuke the US economy.

Cali 'nukes' all the bank accounts. The US nukes Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, etc. The banks restore the account information from tape. Where does Cali restore its cities from?

I know some states have provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting secession... I'm not sure about California. I'm also not sure if there's any provision in federal law prohibiting secession. It would seem a bit odd give the legal theories behind federalism... that sovereign entities called states sacrifice some sovereignty to make gains as part of a union.

It's all academic though since I'm not actually suggesting California secede. I'm just looking for ways to break though the collective coma of American Politics that prevents us from critically rethinking a system that was designed for the politics of 1787. I believe that a secular religion has sprung up around the Constitution and it's treated as if it were handed down on a slab. The reality is that it was barely ratified.

Of course secession is legal. The real question is would it be allowed. I think that was definitively answered back in 1865. In the negative.

we'll invade.

It's been tried before.

However I feel you put it the wrong way. The Basic argument should go like this. What are States rights, and why to they trump Citizens rights? The point is, I as a liberal in MO have more in common with a liberal in CA than I do with a local conservative, and vice versa. So why should my vote count more in my state than yours does in your state? States have powers, granted to them by the Federal Constitution, and they do not have rights, rights are reserved to the PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE should rule. The point being that we are all in this boat together and no state is a monolithic block of ideologically pure citizens who follow it no matter what. All states are diverse and yet where is the representation in Congress? We need to empower all citizens in the entire country if we are to call ourselves democratic, for right now the United States is not a democracy, it never was, and never will be unless this is changed. It is a compromise that has outlived its usefullness and should be abolished.

Solon wrote: "You have a good point. However I feel you put it the wrong way. The Basic argument should go like this. What are States rights, and why to they trump Citizens rights?"

That topic was already being discussed in another thread... Democrats Are AWOL on Democracy. I started this therad to come at the issue from another angle.

"The point is, I as a liberal in MO have more in common with a liberal in CA than I do with a local conservative, and vice versa. So why should my vote count more in my state than yours does in your state?"

Which is my point. When legislatures are all picked in defined districts political minorities are always disenfranchised simply because they can never achieve a majority to win.... even if they make up a sizable minority nationally. The natural consequence of such elections is the two party system. Proportional representation would deal with this problem by allowing citizens to vote for a party. Imagine the Senate was reformed into a national parliament. If the Greens or Libertarians each got 5% of the national vote they'd each get 5% of the seats. Today those citizens have only the choice of voting their conscience and losing or voting the lesser of the evils.

"States have powers, granted to them by the Federal Constitution, and they do not have rights, rights are reserved to the PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE should rule."

Sure states have rights. One key right is state suffrage... which for all intents and purposes is merely a concept that grants citizens in small states bigger votes than their numbers deserve. That plus the other defects in our election system create an anti-democratic system. When the numbers align properly... it can produce minority government as we now have with Bush. State suffrage has long outlived its usefulness. This concept along with a reform-proof Constitution have locked the politics of 1787 in cement. Just look around at some of the responses here from people who are presumably Democrats... they totally subscribe to our anti-democratic system.

"The point being that we are all in this boat together and no state is a monolithic block of ideologically pure citizens who follow it no matter what. All states are diverse and yet where is the representation in Congress?"

It's impossible under our Constitution and winner-take-all election system.

"We need to empower all citizens in the entire country if we are to call ourselves democratic, for right now the United States is not a democracy, it never was, and never will be unless this is changed. It is a compromise that has outlived its usefulness and should be abolished."

There's the Catch 22... citizens are already empowered with a vote they are too apathetic to use. This is another natural consequence of a political system that is anti-democratic, disenfranchises some 49% of the people each election... is generally unresponsive... and at times produces minority government. Since the system is virtually reform proof... citizen apathy grows and special interests gladly fill the vacuum... increasing that citizen apathy.

Generally I'd like to see state suffrage abolished. It's the key concept that needs to be challenged on moral grounds. All it is, is a vote weighing scheme and the greatest obstacle to creating a more democratic America. If successfully challenged it could lead to abolishing the EC... and reforming the Senate. But as an issue... democracy is not even on the radar. Even after election 2000 we see the Democratic Party so morally corrupted by the system that it's AWOL on democracy itself.

State representation in Congress up until the Constitution was amended to allow for direct election of senators was in the Senate. That has changed though.

knight_of_the_star wrote: "As far as state representation.. State representation in Congress up until the Constitution was amended to allow for direct election of senators was in the Senate. That has changed though."

The 17th amendment exposes the myth that somehow the Senate represents legal entities called states. It proves that it's just a vote weighing scheme designed to provide some US citizens more power at the expense of others based upon state residence. Today 15% of the US population gets 50% of the Senate seats...soon it will be 10%. Theoretically a minority of the population, combined with a minority President, can pack the courts with more right wing Neanderthals.... even enter the US into treaties.

This is m_a_d_n_e_s_s

Given the politics of the time... the Framers probably could not have done much better. But a big mistake of the Framers was to lock their politics in cement... and even today you see so-called Democrats unable to think outside the mental straightjacket of 1787 politics.

We all know that there are plenty of other minorities who deserve some legal protections. NONE of those groups are afforded a bigger vote than other citizens. The process of reforming this nations starts in our heads... It's time the we all challenged the morality of granting some US citizens more power at the expense of others... especially if the result is morally illegitimate minority government which can change the direction of US history.

makes my points for me.
there's something about associating with the culturally regressive that makes you feel dirty -- i need a shower -- yuck.

I've seen several people suggest splitting off California, or splitting California in two or more pieces based upon perceived political differences. A minor point, but the north-south California split is an old view of things - down here in south CA, the splits are more like LA county vs. Orange County - and even withing Orange County, there's northern orange vs, say, Mission Viejo (any Mission Viejo residents reading this, no offence intended).

Anyway, what seems to be a desirable condition is to form units that are more homogeneous with regard to political beliefs. I'm willing to listen to arguments, but off the top of my head, that seems like it would lead to problems, a lack of balance. The left could do all the goofy silly little things we like to do, as well as the more laudable socialist forms of government, while the right could set up theocracies. I'd like to see more variety, more balance. As I mentioned before, something I really like about LA, especially after spending 10 years in Omaha, is the diversity of people - and by that I mostly mean in political beliefs, although the other diversity is good to see as well. Omaha has a very limited political spectrum, and I think it's to their detriment. They screw up & don't even realize it. I think that's always a liability in isolated communities.

My post was NOT about whether California should split up or actually secede. It was a suggestion on how to shock the nation out of its collective coma and face the fact that our Constitution needs SERIOUS reform. It's anti-democratic, it is producing morally illegitimate government, and it's virtually reform-proof... and even after the Bush Junta was imposed upon the nation... the root of all the problems is escaping all political scrutiny.

Hell yes I want Constitutional reforms. I just see proposing the idea of giving California MORE Congressman as counter productive, it will further this idea of "states" rights. I think the answer is basically we need multi party elections. We can vote our own most logical representation. This way, from California, to Wyoming...and us in the middle, can have true Representation.

The two party system is a natural outgrowth of having all elections based in defined districts/states. This system disenfranchises political minorities that are more widely spread throughout the nation. I'd like to see the Senate become a national parliament. If Greens or Libertarians each get 5-10% of the national vote... they'd each get that percentage of seats. Ever getting to a multiparty system requires... you guessed it... reforming the Constitution. Before that can happen political leaders need to start raising serious questions about the defects in our system... but even after election 2000... the Democrats are AWOL on democracy.

But i don't favor it with the Senate.

I believe the Senate should stay the same.

I believe the House and ALL state legislatures should be of proportional representation.

I agree with you about Constitutional reforms. I just don't agree with allotting more congressional districts to California.

The Constitution isn't designed to represent PARTIES, it represents people. I personally don't like that idea because it seems to imply that parties are just as important as people, yet parties are simply groups of like-minded people. Parties don't deserve representation unless they can get people to choose them to represent them. And yes, up until I had to change my registration to vote for Wes Clark in the primary, I was Green Party.

talking about splitting states up. But your ideas I like very much at first blush. I've always thought the parliamentary system made more sense anyway - in fact, perhaps the US system makes sense if what you're after is consolidating power in the hands of business. So, yes, short of that kind of change, I agree (even though I'm a Green party member) - no way are we going to have true representation in this system.

It's only a matter of time.

That doesnt sound so good to me.

*

I'm a Californian, and I don't have a solid position on "secession," division, states' rights vs feds' rights, etc.

But I've enjoyed reading the thread. It's given me some meat to ponder over.

I can agree that we need some serious reforms, because we aren't really a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

I'm not sure about the balance of power between states and feds. On my right hand, I know that there are certain things that should be universal for all citizens, and those things may be better addressed at the federal level. On my left, I know that the bigger a system gets, the more dysfunctional and the less efficient it is. And I know that there are many ways to accomplish a universal goal/mandate, and that one-size-fits-all solutions are frequently narrow, heavy-handed, and inefficient.

One of the things I love about California is the incredible diversity. I would like to see us redistricted to be more politically diverse, so that each district wasn't set up to be overwhelmingly one side or another. Then people would have to actually talk to each other and bring differing perspectives to the table to win an election or propose action or legislation. I live in an area that has never, as far as I know, elected a democrat to state office. And it doesn't look like we ever will. That makes it easy to ignore and marginalize those of us with different viewpoints.

I'd like to start at the bottom, with redistricting, IRV, and proportional representation.

Dumb as doorknobs down here and completely irrationally, completely uninformed, conservative drones.

there may be a few others like you ;)

Although it would be good to keep SD, we DO need some diversity to check things.

Yes, I know there are a lot of red states there, but dividing the country makes sense because we need that check and balance if either side turns toward facism. Besides that all the best military installations are in the west and we definitely want to keep them. California could not stand alone because of water and other dependencies we have on other western states and since they depend on California for other products, it would be the sensible thing to do.

That would most likeley have the needed resources to pull it off, and of course the city of Las Vegas.

The good news is that they aren't that well populated and in a country that replaces electoral system (we are going to do that aren't we?) for a better way of doing elections, like runoff voting, the RWingers won't have that much of a say.

Texas is west of the Mississippi, and personally I would NOT want them in my country if I had a choice!

ON EDIT: My bad. I forgot that the divide is somewhere in the middle of the Rockies, not the Mississippi. Oops. I still stand by what I said about Texas though!

No one wants those flat, Christian fundie states. They belong with Boosh. However, what are we gonna do to rescue the liberal east coast? Maybe we can annex them to Canada. Then the RW gestapo can have all those states in Middle America and the South who think they are wonderful. Everyone would be happy then.

Not all of Texas sucks incidentally. I rather liked San Antonio and the Hill Country, where Austin in located and there are lots of liberals in those areas.

If we leave then we will be leaving them to the mercy of their RW neighbors. Should we grant them asylum and invite them to move here for free?

Nation types over to their biblical country. This could work out, sort of like east and west Germany. In a few decades of totalitarian rule, they may see the light and we could reunite as a nation again.

They might just like staying that way.

it will surely fall off into the ocean if it does.

Actually, there is a way to get ABSOLUTELY proportional representation, on the average, regardless of state boundaries and populations. Choose the House of Representatives at random, from a list of all eligible citizens. Then the average number of representatives from Wyoming would be (total number of representatives) times (Wyoming population/national population). Some years, of course, Wyoming wouldn't have a rep; in a few years they might have two or three, but the average would be exactly right.

Those who defend the current distribution of power by states should look at the flow of money from underrepresented to overrepresented states. It is no accident that the big states export tax dollars! If you live in one of those states and defend their excess political pressure, fine, maybe you are perfectly honest -- but please understand if some of you suspect you of self-interest in the matter.

A joint secession of California and the other progressive states -- something like the secession of Russia from the USSR -- seccesion of the subsidy-providers from the subsidy-receivers -- would leave behind a less-developed country that would soon be depopulated with migration to the seceder. Or, worse, a North American Belorussia. What an intolerable and inhumane prospect. Californian imperialism would be far better.

Agreed, we need democratic constitutional reform. Perestroika. Can we get it without revolution?

I only want Represenatation from someone who lives in my community

Is representation from someone who lives in a "gated community" that won't let you thourgh the gate, whose "community" is the worldwide community of 100 or so billionaires -- but he lives in Ohio (legally), so he is part of your community? Think this through. At least with random selection (and I ASSUME that is what you were objecting to) the large majority of representatives would be people of modest means, who live in communities with other people of modest means. And far away most of them would be nonlawyers, by the way. One of them might be you -- equal chance.

edit: no buts

I see your point, I really do. I guess it isn't quite as bad here, my local Congressman are not wealthy individuals (they are also republicans sadly).

I can see the point, too, of "functionalism" -- we want to be assured of a representative who represents interests important to US. The point (before I came into this wrangle) is that state boundaries don't really do that. I admit that randomocracy doesn't either -- doesn't assure us of anything -- but true functional representation is very difficult to get in practice. Might randomocracy be a lesser evil?

That's all I would claim for it. (The Athenians claimed more -- claimed that it put things in the hands of the Gods. If I believed that, I would oppose it -- having read about their Gods!)

BTW, how many of your representatives are lawyers? WAY more than proportionate, I'll wager.

passe' ideas, tricksy things in those boundaries. I don't think they define communities very well. For example, in the eastern US, county boudaries were set up around a market town, the county seat, at a distance of a day's ride - on horseback. And that's where a lot of those boundaries still are. And what's with the Michigan Upper Peninsula? I'd like someone from my community representing me too, and while my experience has been pretty good with state legislators, with the national crew, forget it - even though I lived in a small state like Nebraska for 11 years. Okay, I felt happy with Peter Hoagland, and I was on a friendly basis with Bob Kerrey - doesn't mean either of them really knows my community.

OhioStateProgressive wrote: "I don't support that. I only want Representation from someone who lives in my community."

The problem with representative democracy is there's more than one dimension to any citizen.

Two key dimensions are geographical and ideological. What the current system does not do well is represent political minorities who can not muster a victory in any district/state. That's where proportional representation comes in. But out goes any guarantee that you might actually know your representative.

I'd favor the House remain pretty much as it is.... minus the Gerrymandering... and with the possibility of multi-district elections. I think the Senate would be best made into a national parliament with party elections. If the Libertarians or Greens each get 5% of the national vote... they each get 5% of the seats. Currently they get no representation. Imagine that... citizens could vote their conscience and probably be guaranteed representation. The current system is designed to disenfranchise all those who vote for election losers... while the winner takes all.

Wasn't there once a slogan about no taxation without representation?

At the very end of this long report is a map showing the states that contribute more money to the union... and which states get extra funds... at least in 1999.

http://www.nemw.org/fedspend99.pdf

That site no longer seems to be up.

But I did save a copy... name of report was

Flow of Federal Funds to the States: Fiscal 1999
Matt Kane
Policy Analyst for Budget Issues with
Glenn Starnes
Systems Manager
Northeast-Midwest Institute
218 D Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
202-544-5200
http://www.nemw.org
November 2000

Here's that map from the report

and we'll just keep the Colorado River's water in the remaining US while we're at it. I'm sure Arizona can make good use of it.

56% of the power generated by the Hoover Dam goes to Southern California.

Bridget Burke wrote: "And Nevada can keep its power. 56% of the power generated by the Hoover Dam goes to Southern California."

Are you suggesting that Nevada built Hoover Dam with it's own money or that using it as a regional power supply was never the original intent?

And the power was meant for use by the USA. If California secedes, they're on their own.

Bridget Burke wrote: "It was built with US money. And the power was meant for use by the USA. If California secedes, they're on their own."

I doubt that. I suspect there would still be a high level of economic integration with the rest of the US. It'd be detrimental to both sides if they didn't reach such arrangements. As for Hoover I think a good case could be made that Hoover was not built by monies from all the other states EXCEPT California. Electric power and water are just a few of the issues that would have to be negotiated. I assume there would also have to be some agreement on California's share of the national debt.

All this being said... I have to state again that I am NOT in favor of California seceding. I only raised this issue as a way to shock the nation into dealing with the gross inequities of our federalist system. But if such brinksmanship were to be played... it could only work if a state had a good chance of being independent.

using canadian natural gas? What do you mean by we're "on our own"? We don't pay for the hoover dam electricity, and if we leave we'd have to?

arewethereyet wrote: "good riddance and we'll just keep the Colorado River's water in the remaining US while we're at it. I'm sure Arizona can make good use of it."

OK. Why would Arizona have a more valid claim? They have a desperate need to water al those lawns in Phoenix? And what's to stop some other state from a water grab?

I have no equitable solution to water resource problems. But what if California laid a similar claim to its harbors which import goods to, or export goods from, other states?

Because you choose ONE measure of hundreds.. it's easy to for you to portray California as a parasite. But it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 87 that there is more than one yardstick.

and maybe they really do need the rest of the country after all.

They didn't form this republic just for fun.

arewethereyet wrote: "just pointing out that there is a price for checking out and maybe they really do need the rest of the country after all. They didn't form this republic just for fun."

You MIGHT have had a point except that 3/4 of today's states did not exist when our federalist structure was created... therefore never had a say in devising a better system.

who want Texas to secede. http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=republic+of+texas&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3Ddf6f333e1a78f743%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D3%26amp%3BuserQuery%3Drepublic%2Bof%2Btexas%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.republic-of-texas.net%252F%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DnsBrowserRoll&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.republic-of-texas.net%2F

and fundamentalist Christians to Texas along with Boosh when we kick him out of our country.

.

We really need their electoral votes next election.

;-)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

El Presidente Ahnold the First today announced the adoption of Californias Interim Constitution written with the help of their friends the Texarkans. The Interim Constitution will be in place until the final Constitution is ready in the year 2010.

Some minorities feel that too much power may be given to the Santa Barabarians who have formed a coalition with the Catalinians. Having averted the island state's early withdrawal from the Republica Federales de California (RFD) the Santa Barbarians now have significant influence on the direction the new Country takes.

The world watches as this powerful economic and social power emerges.

more at 11