I have always felt California should have three divisions--North, Central and South. I was born in Redding, and SF/Sacramento seemed less northern and much more central to me. But perhaps the Inland/Coastal division works better.
The election map of Texas has similar stark divisions. The Rio Grande Valley and El Pass are blue, as is liberal wannabe SF clone, Austin. Everything else is red. It seems even the Hispanics voted conservative. Truly telling is that after DNC's Battleground Texas entered the race on behalf of Wendy Davis, her 42% base dropped to 38%. So much for national political parties running the show. As Tip O'Neill said "All politics is local."
I'm not convinced "contestable" is the criterion. Despite what lefties say, they don't practice their "diversity". Implicitly they know that strength comes from unity, and I'd rather have a government with which I could agree. If it got out of hand, it would change naturally by election anyway. Problem with California in its current incarnation is that there are too many people whose beliefs are running it into the ground. I'd rather they ran Coastal California into the ground.
I agree completely with changing our presidential vote from "winner takes all" to "winner of each congressional district gets an elector, and the winner of the state as a whole gets the two 'senator' electors".
I agree with you Darren … apparently my comment didn't post, but I suggested the same thing for electoral votes. The problem with splitting the state is, it would need to be approved by Congress -- and every state we create gives us two more senators. Which is why that guy from Silicon Valley as an idiot for suggesting 6. Two, I think possible, but a North South split I would believe to be fair and encourage competition …
The Electoral College may have been a good choice at one time, but I think with the advent of good communications and computer addition, we could easily have nationwide vote totals.
As to the topic, California should be split into five, NY into at least two, TX into three ...
I like the Electoral College precisely because it *isn't* a popularity contest. It requires presidential candidates to appeal to a wide swath of people. Winner-takes-all delegations subvert that somewhat, but I think it's better than a popularity contest. Going to the direct election of senators was also one of the biggest mistakes we've made in amending the Constitution.
Curmudgeon: It's in the Texas charter that we can divide into five sections. It's always been a middle school project to come up with how to divide the state demographic, geographically and economically to serve each region the best. I don't think either TX or CA are splitting up any time soon, but the divide between haves and have nots is impacting your state.
I have always felt California should have three divisions--North, Central and South. I was born in Redding, and SF/Sacramento seemed less northern and much more central to me.
ReplyDeleteBut perhaps the Inland/Coastal division works better.
The election map of Texas has similar stark divisions. The Rio Grande Valley and El Pass are blue, as is liberal wannabe SF clone, Austin. Everything else is red. It seems even the Hispanics voted conservative. Truly telling is that after DNC's Battleground Texas entered the race on behalf of Wendy Davis, her 42% base dropped to 38%. So much for national political parties running the show. As Tip O'Neill said "All politics is local."
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced "contestable" is the criterion. Despite what lefties say, they don't practice their "diversity". Implicitly they know that strength comes from unity, and I'd rather have a government with which I could agree. If it got out of hand, it would change naturally by election anyway. Problem with California in its current incarnation is that there are too many people whose beliefs are running it into the ground. I'd rather they ran Coastal California into the ground.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with changing our presidential vote from "winner takes all" to "winner of each congressional district gets an elector, and the winner of the state as a whole gets the two 'senator' electors".
I agree with you Darren … apparently my comment didn't post, but I suggested the same thing for electoral votes. The problem with splitting the state is, it would need to be approved by Congress -- and every state we create gives us two more senators. Which is why that guy from Silicon Valley as an idiot for suggesting 6. Two, I think possible, but a North South split I would believe to be fair and encourage competition …
ReplyDeleteI'm not in favor of a split.
ReplyDeleteA split means TWICE AS MANY politicians elected to F*** it up even more.
The Electoral College may have been a good choice at one time, but I think with the advent of good communications and computer addition, we could easily have nationwide vote totals.
ReplyDeleteAs to the topic, California should be split into five, NY into at least two, TX into three ...
I like the Electoral College precisely because it *isn't* a popularity contest. It requires presidential candidates to appeal to a wide swath of people. Winner-takes-all delegations subvert that somewhat, but I think it's better than a popularity contest. Going to the direct election of senators was also one of the biggest mistakes we've made in amending the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteCurmudgeon: It's in the Texas charter that we can divide into five sections. It's always been a middle school project to come up with how to divide the state demographic, geographically and economically to serve each region the best. I don't think either TX or CA are splitting up any time soon, but the divide between haves and have nots is impacting your state.
ReplyDelete