Is the idea dead? I’ve started a series over at @Ricochet to analyze what the six new states would really look like:
In my view, in making his case for breaking up the now-unwieldy state, Draper was really reiterating the argument for federalism itself, that goes back to the Founding and the creation of a republic of thirteen states from the original colonies. Part of the idea was as an integral aspect of the general idea of separation of powers, but a very large part of it was that they would be incubators for new ideas of governance; in Brandeis’s famous words, the states would be “laboratories of democracy.” Based on what I’ve seen of his explanation for it, Draper sees a need for the various regions of California to be given a much broader range to experiment than currently availed them by rule from the Bay area and Los Angeles, via Sacramento.
I suspect that if you scratch many of those who object to a breakup of California, you’d find underneath someone who would like to get rid of the Electoral College and directly elect the president. Such a person, in fact would likely not grieve the loss of the entire concept of a state, a level of government they find archaic and redundant, and a hindrance to beneficent majority rule from Washington itself. To put it another way, if you are a federalist, the argument for a California split is pretty much the same as that for having states in general. If you oppose it, it’s because you see it as a camel’s nose under the tent for more, rather than fewer states, as others (e.g., Illinois) decide that they are too large as well. For them, this is an idea that goes the wrong direction, “against the tide of history,” the Progressive project that has been going on for a century to dismantle the precepts of the original republican Constitution, starting with the direct election of senators.
I hope you’ll find it interesting.
[Update a while later]
I’ve started the series with Jefferson.
original republican Constitution, starting with the direct election of senators. And here’s the real reason liberals are frowning on the idea of splitting up California – it looks like (probably because it is) a way to pack the Senate with Republicans. As laid out, California’s split would end up with 4 unpopulated states providing 8 Republican Senators and two populated states with 4 Democratic Senators. In short, it would aggravate the already undemocratic tendencies of the Senate, where a Montana resident’s vote is over 100 times more valuable than a Californian’s.
There is really nothing sacred about the Senate. It was a compromise, required in order to get the original 13 states to cede power to a National government. Indirect election of Senators was part of that compromise.
…it looks like (probably because it is) a way to pack the Senate with Republicans.
That might happen, but I doubt that it’s Draper’s intent. It wouldn’t “pack” so much as increase Republican representation from the region. Silicon Valley and West California would certainly remain reliable Democrat, but Central California would finally get representation. South California would probably be Republican, and North California and Jefferson would likely be competitive.
” it would aggravate the already undemocratic tendencies of the Senate”
And what is that? Anytime someone goes against the Democrats it becomes an attack against our country?
“where a Montana resident’s vote is over 100 times more valuable than a Californian’s”
Oh no! A minority will get representation. Look what Obama has done to you lol.
“There is really nothing sacred about the Senate”
Ya, they are just people not gods or demigods but the purpose of the Senate is a check and a balance to the powers wielded by other branches of the government and IMO, that is a good thing.
“required in order to get the original 13 states to cede power to a National government”
Shocking that people would want checks and balances before ceding the authority to govern to a federal government.
And what is that? Anytime someone goes against the Democrats it becomes an attack against our country?
I think you’ve confused undemocratic (Webster: “not democratic : not agreeing with democratic practice or ideals”) with un-Democratic (opposed to the U.S. Democratic party).
The Senate is undemocratic by design. The small-d democratic ideal is one person, one vote. The Senate gives a voter in Wyoming 66 times as much influence as a voter in California. The original plan was for Senate seats to be allocated according to the population of each state, the way Congressional seats are, but the small states threatened to secede and align themselves with a European power if they weren’t given the same number of seats as the larger states.
The undemocratic nature of the Senate doesn’t directly have anything to do with Democrats vs. Republicans, since the design favors small Democratic states (e.g. Vermont) at the expense of large Republican states (e.g. Texas) as well. The House, which is the more small-d democratic legislative body, is currently controlled by Republicans, while the Democrats have had more luck in recent years in the undemocratic Senate.
“I think you’ve confused undemocratic ”
Nope, Chris was talking about the dangers of non-Democrat voters in California getting representation. The undemocratic part of what he was saying relates to his view that states should not have any representation but in Orwellian speak he says that the democratic thing to do is not allow Montana to be represented in the Senate.
“The Senate gives a voter in Wyoming 66 times as much influence as a voter in California.”
It gives Wyoming as much influence as California. It protects equality.
“but the small states threatened to secede”
Why should they join up if it means getting stomped on by people who don’t care about their interests or welfare? They just fought a war about that, you might have heard of it. It was kinda a big deal.
“The undemocratic nature of the Senate doesn’t directly have anything to do with Democrats vs. Republicans”
It does in Chris’ comment.
Please do not put words in my mouth. It is undemocratic (note, please, lower-case “d” which is not the same as the upper-case “D” of the Democratic party) to have one set of voters count 66 times more than another set of voters. It was undemocratic in 1787, and it remains so today.
In any event, the attempt to split California is an attempt to empower one party (the Republican) by giving them some reliably conservative states.
That’s because democracy is highly overrated.
” It is undemocratic (note, please, lower-case “d” which is not the same as the upper-case “D” of the Democratic party)”
And while that is true, your concern was that people might have non-Democrat senators. Because you were linking undemocratic tendencies with potential future states not being affiliated with the Democrat party. It reads as if you are more concerned with party than with democracy and representation.
“It was undemocratic in 1787, and it remains so today.”
Only if you don’t think states should exist.
Only if you don’t think states should exist.
No, it’s undemocratic either way. The question of whether to have states is orthogonal to the democratic-ness of the Senate. Hamilton and Madison envisioned a Senate that allocated seats by population. There would still be states, but the Senate would be more democratic. The Senate isn’t undemocratic because states exist, it’s undemocratic because each state, regardless of population, gets the same number of senators.
Imagine if Alaska broke itself into 6 states. Would you see anything wrong with giving each new Alaskan state of 125,000 people the same Senate representation as Texas or New York?
It gives Wyoming as much influence as California. It protects equality.
That’s equality between states, not people. In fact, in pursuit of equality between states it insists on inequality between people. If you are a fan of the American Revolution, and its natural law-inspired ideals, the idea of putting states — artificial constructs — ahead of people should be revolting. It certainly was to the founders. As Hamilton put it in the Federalist Papers:
In those days the largest state was only a dozen times as big as the smallest; now that multiple is sixty-eight. There’s no reason to believe it won’t top 100 someday. Hamilton must be spinning in his grave.
” The Senate isn’t undemocratic because states exist, it’s undemocratic because each state, regardless of population, gets the same number of senators.”
I think the word you are looking for is, less. It is less democratic than mob rule, which is why we do not have a true democracy. The founders made trade offs in order to place checks and balances in the system. The last six years have shown how vital those checks and balances are to the health and longevity of our country.
” That’s equality between states, not people. ”
A state is a group of people bound by geography. They don’t give up their rights by belonging to a state and as a state they have unique rights that other groups like your local rotary club do not.
” it insists on inequality between people. ”
Only if you think people don’t have rights when they form a group. The current system promotes equality between the people of California and the people of Montana. Two separate groups of people who have different cultures, desires, interests, and needs. Seeing how California treats their outgroups, it is more important than ever for small states to have representation.
” the idea of putting states — artificial constructs — ahead of people should be revolting. ”
It doesn’t put states before “people”. It allows a minority group of people to have some influence in one half of one branch of government. It is called checks and balances.
I realize Democrats have been doing everything they can to destroy the pillars of our country and you are free to speak your mind. No one will audit you for your political beliefs. I am a big fan of the checks and balances built into the system and you can thank Obama making them all the more important.
It is less democratic than mob rule
It is less democratic than the House. Do you think the House is an example of mob rule?
The last six years have shown how vital those checks and balances are
Can you offer an example of how the fact that each state has the same number of Senators has been vital the last six years? Obama was stopped by the Democrats’ loss of the House, not the Senate.
It doesn’t put states before “people”.
Of course it does (and it’s hilarious that you put “people” in quotes, as if people are some hypothetical concept). It says to someone in California: you only get 1/19,000,000th of a Senator, while someone in Wyoming gets 1/300,000th, because what state you live in matters more than the fact that you are both people, created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.
Do you think the House is an example of mob rule?
It would be, with no checks on its power.
“It is less democratic than the House.”
We have a House already. The Senate and House are supposed to act as a check and balance to each other.
“Can you offer an example of how the fact that each state has the same number of Senators has been vital the last six years?”
Sure, by each state having the same number of senators, Obama is forced to make his appointments appeal to a wider group of people other than just progressives. Considering how extreme his choices for personnel are, this is a good thing. Unconstrained, it wouldn’t be unimaginable that Democrats who are calling for the imprisonment of non-Democrats and the seizing of businesses that Democrats don’t like would have places of great power in the federal government. We have seen how the Democrat party under Obama wields the federal government as a weapon against dissidents.
“Of course it does (and it’s hilarious that you put “people” in quotes”
That is because you are not treating people as people. You are treating them as “people”, an artificial construct, nameless, faceless, and without any identity or interests of their own.
“because what state you live in matters more than the fact that you are both people,”
No, it is because I value the individual and the minority that states are important. People in small states deserve protection from people in big states. Otherwise California would tell Montana that they have to ship all their water and timber to California but the people in Montana will be banned from using these resources for their own needs.
“It says to someone in California: you only get 1/19,000,000th of a Senator”
A senator represents more than just people. A senator represents the interests of a state or group of people bound by geography. The geography part is important because decisions are made at the federal government level that effect more than just people. Montana should have a say in policies coming from DC that effect land, water use, health care, border security, and on and on.
I value the individual
Unless the individual lives in a state with a lot of other individuals — then you think they should be penalized.
Otherwise California would tell Montana
California isn’t a person. It can’t tell Montana anything. A person in California should have the same voice in the federal government as a person in Montana — no more, no less. You think the person in Montana should have a much greater voice, but you can’t find any rational justification for that inequality.
Do you think its wrong that “white America” can tell “black America” what to do? That “straight America” can tell “gay America” what to do? Should “black America” and “gay America” have extra representation to protect themselves from the majority? Why is majority rule okay for some majorities, and not for others?
A senator represents more than just people
No, they don’t. They are elected by people, to represent people. The trees and prairie dogs and mountains don’t get a vote. If an environmentalist made the argument you’re making, you’d laugh.
Why is majority rule okay for some majorities, and not for others?
Because these particular majorities and minorities are majorities and minorities by dint of where they live, not their ancestry. They can change it by moving. It’s part of the point of wanting the states to be labs of democracy, a concept which is wrecked by overwhelming central power, in either Washington or Sacramento.
“Unless the individual lives in a state with a lot of other individuals — then you think they should be penalized.”
No, I think that their state should receive equal representation as other sates in this specific branch of government. It is the only branch of government where states get an equal say in forming policy.
“California isn’t a person.”
Exactly right, it is a state.
” It can’t tell Montana anything. ”
Say what now? You are saying that if California had more senators, they could not tell Montana anything? The entire cornerstone of your argument is that California or New York should have a larger say in the senate.
“A person in California should have the same voice in the federal government as a person in Montana ”
In the House they do but in the Senate, a check and balance to the House, Presidency, and Judiciary, states get an equal voice.
“You think the person in Montana should have a much greater voice,”
They don’t have a greater voice, their state has an equal voice. Our country is made up of people and states. It is a decentralized form of government, which is a good thing and it was intended to be that way.
“Do you think its wrong that “white America” can tell “black America” what to do?”
WTF is this about? Are you claiming that people who want equality between states are really racists? That people in Montana want a say in how their resources are used because they are racist? That anyone who disagrees with you on policy is a racist?
” Why is majority rule okay for some majorities, and not for others?”
You want to talk about race? Democrats control the areas where black people live. Democrats are in power and their policies are the ones being implemented not “the white majority”. White people, as a group, are not responsible. No one in Montana controls how Democrats choose to run their cities. Decisions that effect the daily lives of black people are being made by their local elected leaders, Democrats. Where the f to you get off blaming white people for this?
Stop scapegoating white people for the evils of the world. The dehumanization and otherization has to stop.
“Should “black America” and “gay America” have extra representation to protect themselves from the majority?”
As long as we have states, these groups of people can organize and change policies in their own states as they have all over the country. Belonging to a state gives them protection from the majority. Gay marriage is possible because states enacted it. Gays and blacks are not a state. They are not bound by geography. They are not resources like timber, water, or energy. They are in no way comparable to a state.
“Why is majority rule okay for some majorities, and not for others?”
You are the one arguing in favor of majority rule. I am arguing for checks and balances with one half of one third of government giving states equal footing.
“No, they don’t. They are elected by people, to represent people.”
They are elected to represent the interests of the states that elected them not just people.
“The trees and prairie dogs and mountains don’t get a vote. If an environmentalist made the argument you’re making, you’d laugh.”
Well, cultish Democrats would literally give the rivers and prairie dogs a vote but amazingly, they would always support Democrat policies and not actually reflect the interests of the rivers or prairie dogs. My position is totally different, that the people who live with the prairie dogs and use the rivers get to have a say in how they are managed by electing local, state, and federal officials.
“California’s split would end up with 4 unpopulated states”
If you might vote against the Democrats, you are not even human, you don’t exist.
The smallest one would be so “unpopulated” that it would have over a million people in it.
I’ve been to Jefferson. The place is empty. There’s a 50 mile stretch of road from Weed, CA to Dorris CA with nobody living on or near it. (Dorris, BTW, is a bustling metropolis of 900 souls.) It may have marginally more people per square mile than Montana, but not by much.
It’s also the poorest part of the state with20.8% of people living in poverty and the lowest median income of the proposed six states. I have no idea how the Jeffersonians expect to pay for their roads and police services.
Actually, it looks like Draper had two goals – pack the Senate with Republicans (Jefferson is as red as you get) while reducing his taxes. The State of Silicon Valley won’t have to subsidize Jefferson’s infrastructure.
I have no idea how the Jeffersonians expect to pay for their roads and police services.
There’s energy that could be developed once out from under the bootheel of Sacramento. Also, they can charge Silicon Valley and West California to house the dangerous inmates at Pelican Bay, and de-unionize the guards.
they can charge Silicon Valley and West California to house the dangerous inmates at Pelican Bay so instead of pulling those high-paying jobs back to their own states, they’re going to pay another state to house their prisoners for them?
Here in Illinois, prisons are one way that Chicago subsidizes Downstate. If Pelican Bay is in another state, what’s Silicon’s incentive to subsidize them?
They’d have to take the prisoners back (many of whom came from there), and build a new facility for them. The only real prison in Silicon is Soledad, and it’s not a max like Pelican. It would be cheaper and more pleasant for them to pay the other states (Central California would have about half the prisons) than to house them in SV. As I said in the article, housing prisoners in other states already happens.
“It’s also the poorest part of the state with20.8% of people living in poverty and the lowest median income of the proposed six states.”
And maybe they are unhappy that the Democrats in control do not care about their welfare or interests. Of course, there are plenty of districts out there where people keep voting for Democrats that claim they will help the poor and whatever else but then never do.
Now that the Senate has been emasculated by the progressives, and its primary duty has been eliminated, then there is nothing sacred about it. But it’s still too bad that those damned hicks from rural states get to mess with your utopianism.
If we’re going to mess with things like this, how about allowing individual border counties the right of voting which of the two adjoining states they’d like to belong to.
That is: Imperial County can decide to vote on whether they’d like to be part of California, or Arizona. Heck, I’d let them vote “Mexico” if they like.
If this shifts the borders, well, next election the new border counties can put it on their ballot.
This puts competitive pressure on the states that -is- an intent of the petri-dish model, over and above individuals voting with your feet… now you’d have counties saying “Hey, you suck.”
1) The population center’s “votes” become more important! (Everyone ‘leaving the state’ makes your vote more important!)
2) Ongoing referendum of every screwy little thing.
Back when the U.S. was regularly adding new states they were sometimes added in pairs, so that the net effect on the Senate and electoral college would be, at least momentarily, nil. So Alaska and Hawaii came in together, because everyone knew that the Democrats in Alaska would balance the Republicans in Hawaii (of course both states went on to flip their party allegiances).
The California breakup plan would net 4-6 GOP Senators, and even more GOP electoral college votes. That could be balanced by merging some small GOP-leaning states, e.g. the Dakotas, and Idaho/Wyoming/Montana. By splitting up the most populated state, and merging some of the least populated ones, we’d nudge the Senate in the direction of more accurately reflecting the nation’s population. After that we could break up Texas (merge VT/NH/ME?) and New York (merge NV & UT?)…
Sure, lets meddle even more. Its what you do best. The problem is, you’re not omniscient.
” That could be balanced by merging some small GOP-leaning states, e.g. the Dakotas, and Idaho/Wyoming/Montana. By splitting up the most populated state, and merging some of the least populated ones, we’d nudge the Senate in the direction of more accurately reflecting the nation’s population. After that we could break up Texas (merge VT/NH/ME?) and New York (merge NV & UT?)…”
You just love ordering people around, telling them what to do; how to run their state; meddling with their lives.
The idea of letting states and towns and people do what they damn well please is utter anethema to you.
So touchy! Obviously nothing like that is going to happen, just as California isn’t going to break up into six states.
I’m touchy because you would do it if you could.
“So touchy!”
Leave your attempts at emotional analyses to someone who knows what the hell they are doing.
I merely pointed out a fact resulting from your statement:
“That could be balanced by merging some small GOP-leaning states, e.g. the Dakotas, and Idaho/Wyoming/Montana. By splitting up the most populated state, and merging some of the least populated ones, we’d nudge the Senate in the direction of more accurately reflecting the nation’s population. After that we could break up Texas (merge VT/NH/ME?) and New York (merge NV & UT?)…”
And that fact: you do not demonstrate the understanding that there’s a difference between what the citizens of a state decide for themselves, and the implications of the phrase:
“…..could be balanced…”
No state is going to be broken up, or joined to another state, without its consent. But because of the way the Senate is set up, and the electoral college, these are decisions of national import, and the consent of the country as a whole is required as well. It isn’t just something that a state can decide for themselves.
“No state is going to be broken up, or joined to another state, without its consent. But because of the way the Senate is set up, and the electoral college, these are decisions of national import, and the consent of the country as a whole is required as well. It isn’t just something that a state can decide for themselves.”
Nice strawman. Irrelevant (as usual) to the point.
” Obviously nothing like that is going to happen, ”
Sure, just like you can keep your doctor, keep your insurance, Benghazi was caused by a video, Bush was behind 9/11, and Iraq was a war for oil. Your ideology is untrustworthy and the perfect example of why we need checks and balances.
Regarding the relative power of residents of small vs. large states, I want to point out that the effects of block voting by the State delegations in the Electoral College overwhelm the effects of the smaller States having disproportionate numbers of Senators. According to the statistical analysis in The Electoral College Primer, by Lawrence Longley and Neal Peirce (1996 edition), a Montana voter was worth 60.13 as much as a Florida voter, or 37.55% as much as a California voter, in a Presidential election (as of a couple of censuses ago). Block voting is a great, under-appreciated evil.
My synopsis of the book:
http://home.earthlink.net/~peter.a.taylor/florida.htm
[I think you meant 60.13% as much]
Good point. Block voting helps explain why the electoral college currently favors the Democrats. The real small state advantage is in the Senate.
Imagine if Alaska broke itself into 6 states. Would you see anything wrong with giving each new Alaskan state of 125,000 people the same Senate representation as Texas or New York?
Nope. You have a problem with it because you miss the point.
Do you understand that many states are now dominated by the larger cities? That the rural population has no representation in the state legislature? This was done by Baker vs Carr, an intrusive and anti-Constitutional decision by the Supreme Court. And now you want to foist that monstrosity on a national level? I don’t think so.
That the rural population has no representation in the state legislature?
Each rural voter has just as much representation as an urban voter. You think that a rural voter deserves more representation than an urban voter. Why?
Because they’re a minority whose rights will otherwise be trampled by the urban majority.
By that token the vote of any member of a minority group should count extra. Do you really mean that?
Not in general, no.
Then why do rural voters deserve disproportionate power to protect themselves, when you wouldn’t grant that power to religious, ethnic, racial, or other minorities?
“Then why do rural voters deserve disproportionate power to protect themselves”
Their state deserves the equal power to represent themselves in one half of one third of the federal government.
” You think that a rural voter deserves more representation than an urban voter. ”
Geography is important. Rural voters deserve representation because decisions made in DC effect how these people live their lives, how their land is used, who has access to public lands, education, ect.
Rural voters don’t get more representation, they get equal representation through their state.
Like it or not, we are a country made up of states. They are not going away and efforts to turn them into peasants, vassals, and serfs without political representation or recourse are misguided at best.
Geography is important.
Yes, but people are more important. It’s one person, one vote, not one acre, one vote.
Rural voters deserve representation
They have representation. The question is why they deserve extra representation. The only people with a legitimate gripe about lacking representation are the residents of D.C.
Rural voters don’t get more representation
Rural voters get extra representation in the Senate. A voter in Wyoming gets 68 times the Senate representation as a voter in California.
we are a country made up of states
Right. But the decision to give every state the same power in the Senate, and individual residents of those states vastly different power in the Senate, was not handed to Moses on a stone tablet. It was the merely the bribe that Virginia and New York were forced to pay Delaware and Rhode Island to keep them from leaving the U.S. and joining a European power.
“Yes, but people are more important. It’s one person, one vote, not one acre, one vote.”
People joined together in a state are more important than a nameless mass of people who neither know what people they have never met experience in life nor respect their rights and privileges. People in California shouldn’t be able to dictate how people in Wyoming live their lives or how they use their resources.
“The question is why they deserve extra representation.”
They don’t get extra representation, they get equal representation.
“A voter in Wyoming gets 68 times the Senate representation as a voter in California.”
Population doesn’t matter in this case because what is being governed is more than just people.
“But the decision to give every state the same power in the Senate”
Equality. Democrats are for equality right?
“and individual residents of those states vastly different power in the Senate”
A senator from Wyoming doesn’t have vastly different power than one in NY.
” It was the merely the bribe that Virginia and New York were forced to pay Delaware and Rhode Island to keep them from leaving the U.S. and joining a European power.”
A compromise made between small and large states in order for them to come together as one country. Why should they voluntarily join a union where they would have no rights and be bullied by larger states? They just fought a war over stuff like this.
That is complete BS and you know it.
Hamilton must be spinning in his grave.
I’m not surprised that you’re prone to quoting the most statist of the founding fathers. There are other writers of the Federalist Papers, you know. Quit quoting and assuming in your quotes that you’ve got the only opinion of the founding fathers.
There are other writers of the Federalist Papers, you know.
Yes, and they agreed with Hamilton. If you want to argue that the founders saw some higher purpose in giving states equal power in the Senate, why don’t you find some quotes to back up your position?
You twist things around. I said you always pick Hamilton for all of your quotes. I’ve given you examples of the opposite under Madison before, which you have ignored.
Nevertheless:
it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation
Madison
“It does not appear to be without some reason” is damning with faint praise. When Madison wrote that he was in the awkward position of defending an odious but necessary capitulation to the small states’ demands. So he gritted his teeth and defended the deal, but that hardly implies that he favored it on the merits. At the convention Madison was a forceful advocate for giving the bigger states more senators. It was Madison who later wrote that “the vital principle of republican government is the lex majoris parties, the will of the majority.”
None of the founders we remember today wanted the states to all be equal in the senate. That was the work of forgotten men like Gunning Bedford.
Yah, you know everything.
Can you offer an example of how the fact that each state has the same number of Senators has been vital the last six years? Obama was stopped by the Democrats’ loss of the House, not the Senate.
Before Reid ended the filibuster, the Senate was able to stop several nominations.
That was due to the filibuster, which — as you note — can be observed or not, depending on the will of the majority. Reid and the Democrats could have dumped the filibuster earlier. The fact that every state has two Senators made no difference.