REPOST — May as well revisit the topic one last time on a tax day where Californians pay up to 10-percent of their personal income to corrupt politicians.


California needs to be split into three states.
The state was only to be allowed to be as big as it was because it was sparsely populated. With an economy that would be 7th in the world if California was a stand alone country it’s ridiculous that its large mass and huge population is represented by only two US Senators, neither of whom represent the interests of the state as a whole.

The State is also ungovernable as a State of this size with such a large population. It’s more of a country than a State by any measure – and a poorly run one, at that.

Every so often the populace discusses cutting the State in half and making two States. I’ve thought about this and cannot see any logical place to split the state in two, but can see a good argument for splitting the State into three.

First of all there are numerous political sub-cultures in California that are so distinctive that they should be separated and given statehood. These areas seldom communicate and rarely see themselves as connected to the other part. They are as follows:

Northern California – This would be a state almost the size of Oregon with similar features and cities. The State begins north of Sacramento with a boundary from Pt. Arena on the west and Lake Tahoe on the east. The suggested Capital would be Eureka or Redding. There is little psychological connection between these folks and the rest of California and their needs are under-represented because of this. The area is massive, yet there is not one University of California campus. It would do better for itself as its own State.

California – The could also be called Central California and it consists of the middle of the State south of Pt. Arena down to just South of Big Sur. From there it cuts
across keeping Los Banos while relinquishing Fresno, which people from this area think of as in Southern California. The Capital would remain Sacramento. The University of California, per se is in this area.

Southern California – This includes the entire rest of the State and constitutes the largest land mass. It would still be one of the largest states in the union. There is already a University of Southern California, which is convenient. The placement of the Capital is problematic and the candidates would include: Los Angeles, Pasadena and San Diego — although an even more neutral location such as Riverside or Santa Ana might work too.

Now to find a way to make this happen.



  1. Palomar Jack says:

    Great, just what we need, another ‘Crat controlled state (S. Cal). Then we’d have Central Vietcal and South Vietcal.

  2. Katie says:

    I’m from Redding and can attest to the fact that Northern California is like a totally different state. People up there are totally different and can be quite hostile to Southern Californians.

    However, the economic argument is a very poor one. By splitting California in three, Northern California would become a state with a very small, largely agrarian economy, similar to Idaho. This is actually one of the reasons it will likely not happen anytime soon, because by becoming their own state Northern Californians would be able to get their own wants adressed but they also would instantly loose out on all the benefits that come from living in such a big state, such as different laws, more money for government benefits, and the power of being in one of the most influential states in the country.

    Southern California would still have one of the largest economies in the country, since most of the money is already down there anyway.

  3. kevin says:

    i’d totally go for your plan. I lived in San Diego for 14 years and Sacramento for 8 – the cultures are so different, i would even think of renaming 2 of the split off areas without the California in it, preferably the northern and central part since most people outside the state think LA or San Diego when they hear California (thatd be a big dispute). But politically, economically, and socially, splitting the area up makes perfect sense. No one can be represented fairly when theres so huge a variety of different needs from different people of unrelated areas.

  4. Hippiephun says:

    Found this pg reseraching for my Environmental Science class and we are focusing on water….to be honest a very depressing class and being from Cali (lived in SoCal and NorcCal) very political among other topics.
    Anywho…..I think dividing the state in 3 sections is a good idea….but instead of the pic above and dividing it horizontally divide it vertically….just a random thought….off the wall….but it would for sure toss things up….just thinking outside the box:)Ponderous!!

  5. beowulf says:

    The thread that will not die…

    Of course California has already been split up 4 ways– by the Federal Judicial Districts.
    http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/fjd/06fjd.html

    The Northern District (San Francisco) has a population of 7.5 million and runs down the coast (only one or two counties deep) from Del Norte on the Oregon border to Monterey.

    The Eastern District (Sacramento) has a population of 7.4 million and tracks its coastal neighbor from the Oregon line South and extends East to the Nevada line.

    South of that is the Central District (Los Angeles), except for San Diego and Imperial Counties which form the Southern District (San Diego).

    The Central District has a population of 18.4 million and the Southern district has 3 million. It looks like the 2 county Southern District should have taken San Bernardino and Riverside instead of 7 county Central District. No doubt there’s some back room politics reason that the counties weren’t aligned that way.

  6. Brian says:

    I say we just take California as a whole state and turn it into our own country and go to war with the U.S.

  7. mdk says:

    Hi all. Let’s face history – CA is too big, culturaly and politically divided to remain together, especially if/when the central authority in DC (i.e., a la Rome) eventually falters. I would split the state into three parts based on cultural/economic/political affinity — all with some form of industry to help each survive. The first I’d name Calpacifica (w/ SF as capital) comprising the coastal counties of Mendocino to Monterey + San Benito, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, and Lake. The second I’d name Calsierra including all counties except the above from Del Norte/Siskiyou/Modoc on the northern border to Fresno/Mono on the southern border — with Sacramento as the capital. The third state, with LA or San Diego as the capital, would be called Calterra. Thoughts?

  8. Brent Emery Pieczynski says:

    May California have permission to suceed from the Union, because that could allow Mexico to invade that place. Would this status as a new nation allow that place, to be receiving enough protection, from the United Nations.

  9. Bobby Cousins says:

    If California can’t be managed because of its size, then how can the US be managed, with its large land area? Should we break up the US into three countries?

    The truth is that California’s childish liberal policies are finally destroying the Golden State. If you people out there want your brand of foolish socialism, then dig deep in your pockets and pay for it,

  10. Jim Winterswolf says:

    This is all wrong! The ONLY State that can legally split under Federal Law is Texas, yes into 5 – though I think it would be a major mistake and weaken it as a whole, as it was the ONLY one given that option when it joined the Union. NO other State can separate or secede … You cannot make two (or more) States from one existing one! This is much like the problem with so many State’s imposing Spanish as a second language into our daily literature … This is an English (American) speaking Counrty. And, the only State allowed to have two languages (legally) is Louisiana (English and French), as it was the French we acquired it from. Hence, there is no true discussion to any of this … it is all mute, since the possibility of a State separating is null and void! Perhaps these illiterate Americans need to go back to school, they might learn something about Political Science/Government History and the many various laws governing it. Not to mention, I doubt the Federal Government would ever allow it anyway… Idiots!

  11. state man says:

    i think cali should stay one state cause this is gonna cause more harm to the people of cali and if that is the case more states much lean on that idea to split states to make more money to keep the state up and running

  12. capt audio says:

    I think they should call the northern part “organic land”, call the central part “fairyland”, and the southern part “Hollyweird”.

  13. LostinSound says:

    THIS sucks!!! the guy sucks and everything sucks! CA should NEVER be split into 3 or 5 or however many states these freaks want to split it into. we’re not ridiculous just because of our population and so what we could be 7th largest in economy if we were a standalone country. WE’RE NOT! so get over it. i love traveling north and bay area and this is going to be ridiculous “oh im going to visit my friends in CA” Hello!?!?! go split texas or NY if you really want to mess with borders, but leave us alone. we are all California, and name changing wont do anything but create confusion and frustration. CA United!!! this blogger is obviously upset and is working himself into a typing frenzy as if his thoughts will make a difference. not really. no splitting. i live in LA and my parents live in the bay area and my cousin lives in sacramento this is just wrong!!! right now we’re in 1 state, but i dont want to think of us as being in 3 different ones. thats just stupid!!! Of course since I am in LA I’m actually a friggin’ idiot.

  14. Atlanta Native says:

    First of all, John, is your “serious website up yet? Evidently, it has been about 4 years since you first posted your proposition.
    Otherwise, I don’t really care if California splits up or not but it occurs to me that, aside from his hyperbole, Pier Johnson (post #53, October 21, 2005) got it right when he suggested that the crucial factor limiting California’s power in Washington D.C. is Public Law 62-5, passed on August 8, 1911, which froze the membership of the U.S. House of Representatives at 435 plus 3 non-voting members for D.C. (it allowed for temporary additions with the addition of new states but requires it to return to 435 with the next census). Congress has the power to increase it’s membership and it should as the population of the country has increased substantially. If this was done, California would see its influence and power grow accordingly.
    Also, the argument that California can’t, will not or should not be split because it would disrupt the current power structure is inappropriate because the balance of power eventually changes anyway.
    To Alexander Moon (post #62 December 16, 2005), who wrote that West Virginia was not created “until well after the War for Southern Rights.”, West Virginia was admitted to the Union in 1863, right in the middle of the War for Southern White Mens’ Ability to Cruelly Enslave Other People.
    To Richard Mgrdechian (post #60, November 11, 2005) regarding his prophesy for the future of California and his website (seemingly defunct), vanity, all is vanity.

  15. sam b says:

    We always take a good idea and mutate it into something grotesque………
    Back in 1850s, the idea was to divide California in TWO.
    There’s a natural border between North and South at the Tehachapi Mtns……Southern Cal. is basicly Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Everything else is Northern Cal.
    The idea of splitting California into more than two states seems to me, going a little too far.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 18557 access attempts in the last 7 days.