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. Craig S Thompson says:

    I am in Texas and I think we should seriously look at breaking up both Texas and California. The effect , simply put, would be better representation for people at the national level. It may also trigger demographic changes with outcomes that are hard to know. However, Current population densities are working against equitable federal representation of millions of people.

  2. not_terribly_cerebral says:

    Agree that CA is as underrepresented in Congress as they are over-represented in popular culture. Neither of those is a good thing.

    I would split CA by mountain ranges, rather than straight lines. But that’s not the point.

    If you’re gonna split CA, some would argue that other states should be downsized or consolidated. (to keep the Senate at 100, limit federal expansion, etc.).

    So let me propose some likely “convergence” candidates:

    Mondaho – Big Sky, big state.

    Dakota – I’m sure the distinction between North and South Dakota was important at one time in our history. I’m equally sure that time has passed.

    New England – A region that is egregiously over-represented. For years, the BOSTON Patriots were horrible. But after becoming the NEW ENGLAND Patriots, they are the role model for the league, and their contagious success even rubbed off on the Flagbearers of Futility, the Boston Red Sox (no way it takes 86 years between championships if they became the NEW ENGLAND Red Sox!)

    If you don’t buy the whole New England consolidation, then how about “Verhampshire”. Without looking at a map, nobody remembers which one is east and which one is west. New capital: Killington.

    There should still be 2 Carolinas, but they should be East and West, with a diagonal border along the Piedmont. The coastal and highland dual identity thing is confusing for both states. How else do you explain a place called Beech Mountain?!

    Coloroming (or Wyorado) – To use some Jesse-speak we want Representation. Based on Population. Not Elevation. Or Ski vacation. In our great nation.

    I’m sure there are other opportunities to defrag the US map. And I want to hear them.

  3. voodoom says:

    wait, wait, wait

    article IV, section 3 which states: “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.”

    so with the consent of the congress it is constitutional for states to split and merge, just not at the whim of the states

  4. Bill says:

    We can’t even design a quarter that represents the state. How will we ever agree to do what the right thing and split this monster. Water is our biggest issue, so give it back to the source, Northern Ca. Looking forward to the new site, if enough people speak out perhaps it could happen.

  5. Eric O. says:

    John Gummere is probably thinking of Douglas Coupland’s 1992 map “Canada and the United States in the year 2092” – I have a copy from the newspaper – it shows Calif divided by a straight line from around Monterey Co. to Mono Lk, and with the Nor part united with NV and called ‘Shasta Republic’ while the south part is called “Republica de California del Sur’. ‘Cascadia’ includes OR, WA, BC, Yukon, Alaska. Utah is on its own called “Utah Theocracy’ (heh heh). The rest of the Rocky Mtn states are called ‘Colorado Nation’, TX and OK are ‘Texlahoma’, ‘Dixie’ includes LA, MS, AL, AR, TN, GA and a bit of Florida.. the rest of Florida is on its own. The rest of the US along with the Canadian Maritimes are the USA. The 3 Prairie provinces are the ‘Canadian Loyalist Coalition’, Ontario is on its own as is Quebec, although NWT (called Nunavut) is administered by Ont.., and Labrador is leased to ‘Consolidated Edison until 2110’! (presumably because of the hydroelectric potential).
    About dividing Calif – for what it’s worth from someone who is not a resident but has been there more than once, I would recommend dividing it along the Tehachapis following the drainage divide all the way up the Sierras. This would split some counties but no big deal compared to splitting a state. It is important for any future divisions to avoid water disputes by following drainage lines as much as possible. They are also useful because they tend to be natural buffers between distinct populations. I dont know about dividing the northern part to make 3 states total; it seems the densely inhabited areas are too meshed from Redding down to Bakersfield to draw an easy boundary so I won’t comment on that.
    A bit wordy but I cant help myself..

  6. Cameron says:

    I’ll keep this short:

    The general idea is good, but I want one thing changed. The border between North and Central is fine, but the border between Central and South is all wrong. Being from Fresno, I want nothing to do with Southern California. The spilt should be at the North end of the Grape Vine, so basically anything South of Bakersfield would be “Southern California” while Bakersfield itself would be Central.

  7. I agree with this throught process, but i dont think that not having a UC is a valid point to bring up. Chico is better than many of the schools down here in Central CA.

    i have lived in many of the various sections of CA from Redding to La and i have never felt that 2 senators was enough to represent us. California is the only self sufficient state, in that we export a majority of our resources to keep the rest of the country rolling. The question should not be to think about where to draw the line, but to devise a way to seperate the state from the rest of the country.

  8. dean says:

    The Bay Area could do without everything east of Oakland (except all the water in the Sierras). The Bay Area should be its own country! Bring back the Bear Flag! Bring Back the Republic of California!

  9. Having lived in both Northern and Southern California during my youth, I certainly find merit in splitting California at least in half. Southern California would start at Tehachapi Pass, meander west to just north of Santa Maria, and east-northeast to include the Owens Valley.

    I don’t see much justification in having separate Central and Northern California states. Are the differences between the two really that great?

  10. Scott says:

    If for no other reason, this discussion alone has been worth bring up the topic.

    While the division of assets alone might make this idea difficult to realize, I would like to see some sort of solution to the problem of representation for the northern half of the state. Political power will always reside with the numbers and the northern half of the state simply can’t compete.

    The truth is everyone would like to live in their own version of California, but your always going to have the liberals, conservatives, kooks, freaks and all the rest that make California such a great place to live. Changing the political bounderies of our state won’t change that.

    Love thy neighbor, just let them near your children…

  11. David says:

    I agree with a split, but it should just be two states. North California would be just north of Fresno. I agree that a huge issue would be water, I dont know if Socal could support itself.

  12. G.J. says:

    Awww, Americans, please have some imagination in creating borders, like us from the Old World. Just look at the beauty of the California/Arizona border. So use some creativity, find some valley, river, mountain crest or ridge to make divisions.

  13. David says:

    I’ve had this wacky theory for a long time that we should split California into three parts. My plan would balance multiple interests. Each new state would include at least one major city and a balance of rural/ag/resource-based areas, too. A North California that took in only ag/resource-based areas north of Sacto and the Bay Area wouldn’t be as economically viable.

    How about this:

    North California: This would be the most rural and agriculture/resource-based of the new three states. The city anchor (and capital) would be Sacramento, which is politically and culturally more like a lot of the rural areas of North Calif. It could take in Del Norte and Humboldt counties along the coast, snake down Trinity, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Yolo in the middle of the state, Sacto, Amador, Calaveras and Alpine.

    Central Calif: The Bay Area would be the urban core, but it would also include the less developed coastal areas of Mendocino in the north and Santa Cruz/Monterey in the south. It would extend through parts of the central valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, down to Merced, Fresno) and over toward Nevada (Madera, Mono).

    South Calif: Straight line south of SLO, Kern, San Bernardino counties, plus above-the-line Kings, Tulare, Inyo. LA/San Diego are the urban areas, plus it also gets a chunk of the Central Valley for agribiz, etc.

    -david/Oakland

  14. Quisquose says:

    Sorry, that should read:

    “- States above population 10 million (the top eight) have to split in multiple States.”

    It took my “eight)” and turned it into a smiley face.

  15. Grrr says:

    #80 – John said there’s no UC in N. CA, not no CSU’s.
    #7 – heh.
    I’m with #101 (and #2) – Bakersfield and the whole SJ valley gotta stick together.
    #49 – nice nonsequitur.

    <grrr>

  16. Vinnie Boombots says:

    Splitting CA is a great idea. Let’s start with San Fransico and kick it off the coast about 200 miles west. Let’s have the 9th Circuit Court lead the exodus. Yep – That ought to do it just fine.

    Any other configuration will require a new US flag and adding more seats to the Senate and House in Washington DC.

  17. Justin says:

    I don’t think it will happen. WE can’t even get a representative in Washington D.C. without the GOP having a fit. I hope that that will work. But this! I don’t know how it is possible?

  18. brian says:

    Why just split the state..let’s split from the Union all together. We keep hearing the statistics depending on how you measure it anywhere from 5th to 7th largest country/economy in the world..and yet we are at the bottom in schools, healthcare, and the top in taxes…let’s get away from the US..they are the ones dragging down the great country of California!!!

  19. tyler says:

    i dont think we should split from the union but spliting into two seperate states has been a dream of mine and alot of my friends for a long time northerners and southern Californians just do not see eye to eye

  20. ECA says:

    I suggest you REALLy THINK about that…
    N. cal supplies about 2/3’s of S. Cal’s water, and POWER…

  21. tyler says:

    yes but that is why we have the federal government to resolve and mandate those type of issues’ we dont give the feds money just to sit on there arses

  22. MidwestObserver says:

    This whole thing is why the rest of the country says:

    “California – The Land of Fruits and Nuts”

  23. Ed Fuller says:

    So Midwest Observer, are you in favor of two states?

    You see, “The Land of Fruits and Nuts” refers to Northern California (all them hippie types) while Southern California is “The Land of Confusion”. 🙂

    I grew up in San Diego/LA 60 years ago and they were talking about splitting then. It would probably make sense to do, but unless someone stands to make a heap of money, it’s never going to happen.

  24. Alan Blackmon says:

    I used to live in Eureka California. I have seen two prior times when the subject of splitting California comes up. I supported the idea then, and do today.

    The question comes up on how the states can support themselves. I recall the answer given the last time was this. Taxes collected in the north are used mainly for the needs of the southern end of the state. Up north six cents for every dollar was returned for expenditures needed up there. Ok, so if that was true, the tax collected and kept up north would allow that part of the state to be perfectly fine for money. You could even reduce the taxes drastically to keep the same level of money that came in for taxes.

    The last time I recall this subject came up the idea was that the North eastern part of California would consider annexation into Nevada. Redding would be the capitol. I think this would be an excellent idea. The needs of that part of the state are very different than the part where Eureka is located. Eureka would be an excellent place for the capitol. It would sure help the economy up there. When I moved the economy was driven by drugs, welfare, and burglary. That is why I moved.

  25. john thurman says:

    i agree with splitting it up 100%.the problem we have us that up here in northern california ( from sacramento north) we get stuck with all the crappy laws that those knottheads in southern california put in. everyone says we have a say, but we havent seen it. we dont know about anything until its already put into law and were stuck with it. southern and central californ ia make all of the decisions.but it boils down to this. we as citizens dont have any say in anything to do with our state. the legislators and southern californians make the rules and the rest of us have to live with them and suffer. what ever happened to for the people by the people. thats hogwash. it hasnt been for the people by the people for a lifetime. these knotheads that southern californians put into office are stupid.

    split the state, and let the people actually vote on and choose which laws we have, and which we dont.

  26. Alex M says:

    Last thing we need is Balkanization of the states.
    The fact that Chico, Redding, and Eureka are completely different from Sac, SF, LA, etc. isn’t that important. It’s like worrying about upstate NY being too different from NYC. The fact that we are diverse and celebrate it by not structuring a segregationist country is one of our greatest strengths.

  27. Roger Wilson says:

    Why not just let California be its own country? Then Arnold could be president.

  28. jonathan ellis says:

    Here’s a map I made of California in 3 states:

    California split map

    I’d be down for having Arnold as supreme ruler of the nation of California. Then we could get rid of a lot of red tape and fix things in an Austrian authoritarian manner…

    Anyway, as a San Luis Obispan I’d say we have more of a connection to the Bay area, even though we are technically closer to LA.. (but not by much) this is because the geography is very similar around SLO county and north to the Bay area.

    SLO county shares a similar liberal ideology, and are environmentally mentality as the bay area. Most people would say we feel culturally more similar to the bay area.

    I think these are fundamental social differences from the Southern part of the state.

    Once you get toward Buellton, and Goleta you really start to get that southern California feel. but I feel Santa Maria feels more of a connection to LA and the south than we do, so I have the Santa Maria river as the boundary in the west, then just south of Fresno in the valley.

  29. Palomar Jack says:

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

  30. 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.


4

Bad Behavior has blocked 5458 access attempts in the last 7 days.