Silicon Valley As A Separate State?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
While we all know this will never happen, it would be funny as hell if it did. :D

Technology investor Tim Draper’s plans to split California into six separate states, including a Northern California slice appropriately named “Silicon Valley.” Draper shared his vision with TechCrunch tonight. He says he’s submitting a polished version to the state’s Attorney General in the form of a ballot proposition proposal within the next 48 hours. “Six Californias” already has a campaign website up and is eager for an army of volunteers.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like a bad idea to me, California will still be broke even if this did happen...I'm sorry the six California's will still be broke.
 
A few days ago we had a crazy proposal from a politician to have western pa form its own state. The complaint had something to do with a believed imbalance of money going to eastern PA. Obviously the resolution failed miserably but it made the news..
 
It would be better if certain states would just fall off the planet. But then not much of the US would be left.
 
Ha! I see what they did here...

Right now - 2 US Senators

After splitting - 12 US Senators

I would bet 8-10 would probably be Democrats, meaning that would add 6-8 more Democrat Senators to the US Senate, and only 2-4 Republicans.

I didn't realize the Democrats were so afraid of 2014 and 2016...
 
mavrocket said:
Ha! I see what they did here...

Right now - 2 US Senators

After splitting - 12 US Senators

I would bet 8-10 would probably be Democrats, meaning that would add 6-8 more Democrat Senators to the US Senate, and only 2-4 Republicans.

I didn't realize the Democrats were so afraid of 2014 and 2016...
Click to expand...

Yep both parties try to do everything they can to gain more power. Democratic house candidates got more votes nationwide in the 2012 election, yet somehow Republicans won a lot more seats in the house.
 
So after they split, which one falls into the ocean when the next "Big One" hits?
 
Better idea: make them a six-state sovereign nation left to deal with their crippling debt on their own.
 
The guy pushing this is an investor. I wonder what companies other than flag companies this would benefit.
 
We laugh and joke now, but the country as a whole is starting to get sick of those in charge, and the idea of splitting regions up due to differing opinions/views is just the beginning.

I would dare say the US undergoes some sort of split / minimally-violent civil war in the next 50 years.
 
You're a fool if you think California is more bankrupt than other states (especially all those red ones in the middle and south of the country).

You're also a fool if you think almost all of California votes Democrat.

You're a fool a third time if you think there is a real difference between the Democrats and Republicans budget-wise and steadfastly vote for one or the other.
 
It won't happen, but something really should be done considering how unfair the senate currently is, heavily favoring small states.


With two senators per state, regardless of population, a vote for a senator in Wyoming is essentially worth 66 times more than a vote for senator in California.

The system severely penalizes voters from large states.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040483990 said:
It won't happen, but something really should be done considering how unfair the senate currently is, heavily favoring small states.


With two senators per state, regardless of population, a vote for a senator in Wyoming is essentially worth 66 times more than a vote for senator in California.

The system severely penalizes voters from large states.
Click to expand...

Similarly a vote for Senate in Vermont is worth ~42 times more than a vote for Senate in Texas, to flip it the other way around politically.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040483990 said:
It won't happen, but something really should be done considering how unfair the senate currently is, heavily favoring small states.


With two senators per state, regardless of population, a vote for a senator in Wyoming is essentially worth 66 times more than a vote for senator in California.

The system severely penalizes voters from large states.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious right now?

That's why there is a House of Representatives!

The Senate was originally elected by the State's Legislatures, and was designed as a legislative body to debate the bills approved by the House. That was changed by the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Do yourself a favor friend, and learn some history and educate yourself.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040483990 said:
It won't happen, but something really should be done considering how unfair the senate currently is, heavily favoring small states.


With two senators per state, regardless of population, a vote for a senator in Wyoming is essentially worth 66 times more than a vote for senator in California.

The system severely penalizes voters from large states.
Click to expand...

So you would prefer that the country be controlled by just a couple states? States which are predominately Democrat? States which damn near encourage illegal immigration and welfare queens? States which if you removed all the dead weight of illegals and worthless pieces of shit would lose large portions of their populations?

California is a great example of why a system of being a landowner being a requirement to vote should be brought back.
 
darkstarcow said:
So you would prefer that the country be controlled by just a couple states? States which are predominately Democrat? States which damn near encourage illegal immigration and welfare queens? States which if you removed all the dead weight of illegals and worthless pieces of shit would lose large portions of their populations?

California is a great example of why a system of being a landowner being a requirement to vote should be brought back.
Click to expand...

Firstly,

Largest State is California. (tends left) Smallest is Wyoming (tends right)
Second largest is Texas. (tends right). Second smallest is Vermont (strongly left)

If we made the system more fair, there wouldn't be a huge drift left or right IMHO.

And as has been stated before, although California overall tends left, it's not as overwhelmingly so as one might think. Some of the most right wing folks I have met live in California. In fact, if you look at this chart, it appears as if more likely voters in California consider themselves Conservative (38%) vs. Liberal (33%). They just have a large unaffiliated center accounting for approximately 29% of the state.

Secondly,

Why does it matter what state a vote comes from? We are all American citizens. We should have equal representation, regardless of which state we are in. If more of us happen to live in one state vs. another, of course more influence should come from there.

State borders - in and of themselves - are arbitrary and unimportant.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040484073 said:
Firstly,

Largest State is California. (tends left) Smallest is Wyoming (tends right)
Second largest is Texas. (tends right). Second smallest is Vermont (strongly left)

If we made the system more fair, there wouldn't be a huge drift left or right IMHO.

And as has been stated before, although California overall tends left, it's not as overwhelmingly so as one might think. Some of the most right wing folks I have met live in California. In fact, if you look at this chart, it appears as if more likely voters in California consider themselves Conservative (38%) vs. Liberal (33%). They just have a large unaffiliated center accounting for approximately 29% of the state.

Secondly,

Why does it matter what state a vote comes from? We are all American citizens. We should have equal representation, regardless of which state we are in. If more of us happen to live in one state vs. another, of course more influence should come from there.

State borders - in and of themselves - are arbitrary and unimportant.
Click to expand...

After living in CA for 25 years it became blatantly obvious that certain districts completely ruled elections, those districts were democrat which fucked republicans.

I agree a single person should get a single vote, but with the way the system is setup now it is quite easy to fuck over the opposite party, and CA isn't shy about doing it every chance they get.
 
mavrocket said:
Are you being serious right now?

That's why there is a House of Representatives!

The Senate was originally elected by the State's Legislatures, and was designed as a legislative body to debate the bills approved by the House. That was changed by the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Do yourself a favor friend, and learn some history and educate yourself.
Click to expand...

I know the history very well, I just think a lot of the original intent of our founders is mostly obsolete in modern society.

To me, having a fair political system where all peoples votes are equal is FAR more important than what party it favors, and what party it harms, or what state it favors and what state it harms.

States were very important when our nation was founded, as they were banding separate entities with different interests that had to be looked after together. Now that we are a more integrated country, state lines are really no more than arbitrary lines on a map. (And unless you don't drive over one with a minor, gun, or certain pharmaceuticals in tow, you are fine).

I'm all for states rights, and I think it is a great way to make politics more local, so people locally can get what they want, but at some point it also has to be fair. one person, one vote. Today it is not.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040484087 said:
States were very important when our nation was founded, as they were banding separate entities with different interests that had to be looked after together. Now that we are a more integrated country, state lines are really no more than arbitrary lines on a map.
Click to expand...

In other words, state sovereignty means nothing to you.
 
darkstarcow said:
After living in CA for 25 years it became blatantly obvious that certain districts completely ruled elections, those districts were democrat which fucked republicans.

I agree a single person should get a single vote, but with the way the system is setup now it is quite easy to fuck over the opposite party, and CA isn't shy about doing it every chance they get.
Click to expand...

Yep, and the same thing happens across the country through jerrymandering (which seems to be even more popular in republican dominated states). But equalizing (or not equalizing) peoples votes across states won't change that.
 
Outamyhead said:
Sounds like a bad idea to me, California will still be broke even if this did happen...I'm sorry the six California's will still be broke.
Click to expand...

California has a surplus now of at least $2.4 Billion and it's getting better cause people in California voted to increase taxes until 2018 under Prop30 and after that surpluses are expected to grow to $27.3 Billion in 2020, this is from the state LAO.

Oh and if this thing gets on the ballot it will go down in flames and it would require the US Congress to approve this reich-wing takeover by a bunch of cry babies who without the cities would not be able to support themselves, as they would have to fund everything Sacramento does and that means taxes...
 
mavrocket said:
Ha! I see what they did here...



I didn't realize the Democrats were so afraid of 2014 and 2016...
Click to expand...

Their not with Sen. Ted Turtle as the Republican candidate he's pretty much handing the elections to the Dems.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040484073 said:
State borders - in and of themselves - are arbitrary and unimportant.
Click to expand...

Are you on drugs? There's major differences that a few feet across the border will land you a significantly different penalty. Try carrying a concealed handgun in Nevada with a permit then cross that "arbitrary" border into California and let me know how prison rape feels.
 
Stiletto said:
In other words, state sovereignty means nothing to you.
Click to expand...

State sovereignty, insofar as what laws and constitution each state decides to implement IS very important to me, as is making sure that a voter from a smaller state isn't unfairly given a greater influence over our federal government than a voter from a larger state, based solely on where they live.

The ability of a state to form its own laws and constitution would not be impacted if every citizens vote to the U.S. Senate were equal.
 
where the vote comes from matters. if we did not have states and districts and electorial votes then the top 5-6 major population centers would absolutely dominate the political landscape. People who live in metropolitan areas have vastly different priorities politically than people in suburban America and rural America. One size does not fit all in this country, and that applies for almost everything in our legal system.
 
Seventyfive said:
Are you on drugs? There's major differences that a few feet across the border will land you a significantly different penalty. Try carrying a concealed handgun in Nevada with a permit then cross that "arbitrary" border into California and let me know how prison rape feels.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read this part of my post:

Zarathustra[H];1040484087 said:
(And unless you don't drive over one with a minor, gun, or certain pharmaceuticals in tow, you are fine).
Click to expand...
 
Worth debating. The inertia around Tuesday (well, about 13 hours) elections, the electoral college, number of representatives, states and borders, etc. does not have to remain for another 50+ years.

Flood an arena with members of a giant Congress. Have so many that worhtswhile bribes and promises of lobbying gigs become much, much more expensive. Have so many that TV and radio advertising is basically pointless and most people watching the broadcast aren't even in District 19 or wherever.

Mark Kirk was elected in Illinois. Scott Brown won in MA. Don't nominate someone like Fiorina (or Akin, Mourdock, O'Donnell) and expect to win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top