California to Vote on Splitting in Three in November

[Washington Resistance Army]

Should the populous coast of California not be able to decide statewide elections and who controls the legislature? Should we give the rural counties a unfair advantage in statewide elections or control of legislature? That's what the people behind this referendum believe. They dont like that they are outvoted by the rest of the state so they want to break it up.

In England there used to be county constituencies with 2 MPs representing a handful of people, while in borough constituencies there was 1 MP for thousands. That was obviously unfair and was changed. Why do so many in the US lag behind on this simple concept: all men (an women, etc.) are created equal therefore all votes should be equal.

Because the US is really really really big and people don't like someone who has never been to their area dictating policy for it.

[Telconi]

People treat you like you treat them? So shocking, much surprise!

I have never espoused that people i disagree with shouldn't be allowed to vote.

You've espoused worse.

[San Lumen]

Should the populous coast of California not be able to decide statewide elections and who controls the legislature? Should we give the rural counties a unfair advantage in statewide elections or control of legislature? That's what the people behind this referendum believe. They dont like that they are outvoted by the rest of the state so they want to break it up.

In England there used to be county constituencies with 2 MPs representing a handful of people, while in borough constituencies there was 1 MP for thousands. That was obviously unfair and was changed. Why do so many in the US lag behind on this simple concept: all men (an women, etc.) are created equal therefore all votes should be equal.

They dont like that urban and suburban areas outvote them so they want a unfair advantage in state legislatures or statewide elections. They dont believe in one man one vote.

[San Lumen]

I have never espoused that people i disagree with shouldn't be allowed to vote.

You've espoused worse.

No I haven't

[Goverwal]

In England there used to be county constituencies with 2 MPs representing a handful of people, while in borough constituencies there was 1 MP for thousands. That was obviously unfair and was changed. Why do so many in the US lag behind on this simple concept: all men (an women, etc.) are created equal therefore all votes should be equal.

Because the US is really really really big and people don't like someone who has never been to their area dictating policy for it.

If you look at 2016, neither candidate was exactly from a poor, rural part of America. And 2016 is also proof that the system is undemocratic.
Where could any of the stereotypes for Americans possibly come from?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

I'm familiar with this plan, and unlike the Six California Iniative, which would have created three hard Democrat states, two hard Republican states, and one GOP-leaning swing state, this one would create three blue states and provide zero relief to those populations currently under the rule of the madmen in the cities.

This initiative, unlike the Six California one, would ensure that each new California state remains chained to one major ultra-left city. In short, it would simply create three miniature Californian states.

If you want to see a REAL, fair, and truly beneficial partitioning of California, check this out.

TBH, California's secession from the Union would be vastly more beneficial to the USA than keeping California.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because the US is really really really big and people don't like someone who has never been to their area dictating policy for it.

If you look at 2016, neither candidate was exactly from a poor, rural part of America. And 2016 is also proof that the system is undemocratic.
Where could any of the stereotypes for Americans possibly come from?

It being undemocratic isn't inherently a bad thing.

[Goverwal]

If you look at 2016, neither candidate was exactly from a poor, rural part of America. And 2016 is also proof that the system is undemocratic.
Where could any of the stereotypes for Americans possibly come from?

It being undemocratic isn't inherently a bad thing.

Why does the US force democracy upon the Middle East if 'being undemocratic isn't inherently a bad thing'.

[San Lumen]

I'm familiar with this plan, and unlike the Six California Iniative, which would have created three hard Democrat states, two hard Republican states, and one GOP-leaning swing state, this one would create three blue states and provide zero relief to those populations currently under the rule of the madmen in the cities.

This initiative, unlike the Six California one, would ensure that each new California state remains chained to one major ultra-left city. In short, it would simply create three miniature Californian states.

If you want to see a REAL, fair, and truly beneficial partitioning of California, check this out.

TBH, California's secession from the Union would be vastly more beneficial to the USA than keeping California.

People in cities are madmen? Why? Because they disagree with you? Succession from the Union isn't going to occur.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It being undemocratic isn't inherently a bad thing.

Why does the US force democracy upon the Middle East if 'being undemocratic isn't inherently a bad thing'.

Because Dubya wanted to finish what daddy started, duh.

[The Lone Alliance]

The majority from a single region of the country when you're supposed to represent the entire country?

Should the populous coast of California not be able to decide statewide elections and who controls the legislature? Should we give the rural counties a unfair advantage in statewide elections or control of legislature? That's what the people behind this referendum believe. They dont like that they are outvoted by the rest of the state so they want to break it up.

How will they have unfair advantage over the cities when they're completely split off from the cities?

Sounds more like both sides would lose a massive ball and chain around them. Though on the bad side it might cause both of them to go so hard left or right that they'll destroy themselves without the other side trying to force them to be moderate.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

If you look at 2016, neither candidate was exactly from a poor, rural part of America. And 2016 is also proof that the system is undemocratic.

The Founding Fathers were terrified of a direct, simple majority election of the President. They were also abhorred by the notion of urban dwellers crushing rural ones by mere numbers. A true, absolute democracy is a threat to liberty.

The Electoral College is MORE democratic than a true, national, popular vote. EACH STATE holds its own majority-rule election, and that vote commands the state's appointment of the President. That means that the President has to give at least some attention to the people of Wyoming instead of letting Florida, Texas, New York, California, and Illinoise decide the Presidency. It ensures that the cities cannot oppress the rural areas, which cities always do. Case in point? California.

I do not want to be ruled over by some retard in Atlanta simply because there are more Atlantans than Gainesvillites. That is unfair to me. "One man one vote" is tyranny by the majority, plain and simple. One of the worst actions the Supreme Court ever did was prohibit states from drawing their own state-level constituent lines.

[San Lumen]

If you look at 2016, neither candidate was exactly from a poor, rural part of America. And 2016 is also proof that the system is undemocratic.

The Founding Fathers were terrified of a direct, simple majority election of the President. They were also abhorred by the notion of urban dwellers crushing rural ones by mere numbers. A true, absolute democracy is a threat to liberty.

The Electoral College is MORE democratic than a true, national, popular vote. EACH STATE holds its own majority-rule election, and that vote commands the state's appointment of the President. That means that the President has to give at least some attention to the people of Wyoming instead of letting Florida, Texas, New York, California, and Illinoise decide the Presidency. It ensures that the cities cannot oppress the rural areas, which cities always do. Case in point? California.

I do not want to be ruled over by some retard in Atlanta simply because there are more Atlantans than Gainesvillites. That is unfair to me. "One man one vote" is tyranny by the majority, plain and simple. One of the worst actions the Supreme Court ever did was prohibit states from drawing their own state-level constituent lines.

So would a system of government where the candidate for statewide office who wins the most counties is elected despite losing the popular vote be fair to you? Such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_ ... tion,_2014

[The Corparation]

TBH, California's secession from the Union would be vastly more beneficial to the USA than keeping California.

Because throwing out more than a 5th of the country's GDP, more than 10% of the country's food production and roughly an 8th of the country's labor force is "beneficial". But hey at least you'll have less liberals in the country .

[Goverwal]

If you look at 2016, neither candidate was exactly from a poor, rural part of America. And 2016 is also proof that the system is undemocratic.

The Founding Fathers were terrified of a direct, simple majority election of the President. They were also abhorred by the notion of urban dwellers crushing rural ones by mere numbers. A true, absolute democracy is a threat to liberty.

The Electoral College is MORE democratic than a true, national, popular vote. EACH STATE holds its own majority-rule election, and that vote commands the state's appointment of the President. That means that the President has to give at least some attention to the people of Wyoming instead of letting Florida, Texas, New York, California, and Illinoise decide the Presidency. It ensures that the cities cannot oppress the rural areas, which cities always do. Case in point? California.

I do not want to be ruled over by some retard in Atlanta simply because there are more Atlantans than Gainesvillites. That is unfair to me. "One man one vote" is tyranny by the majority, plain and simple. One of the worst actions the Supreme Court ever did was prohibit states from drawing their own state-level constituent lines.

But the alternative to tyranny by majority is surely tyranny by minority. I know which I'd prefer.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm familiar with this plan, and unlike the Six California Iniative, which would have created three hard Democrat states, two hard Republican states, and one GOP-leaning swing state, this one would create three blue states and provide zero relief to those populations currently under the rule of the madmen in the cities.

This initiative, unlike the Six California one, would ensure that each new California state remains chained to one major ultra-left city. In short, it would simply create three miniature Californian states.

If you want to see a REAL, fair, and truly beneficial partitioning of California, check this out.

TBH, California's secession from the Union would be vastly more beneficial to the USA than keeping California.

People in cities are madmen? Why? Because they disagree with you? Succession from the Union isn't going to occur.

Dude none of this is going to occur. Just do what Californians do when this shit pops up, chuckle to yourself and continue being awesome.

[Auze]

If you look at 2016, neither candidate was exactly from a poor, rural part of America. And 2016 is also proof that the system is undemocratic.

The Founding Fathers were terrified of a direct, simple majority election of the President. They were also abhorred by the notion of urban dwellers crushing rural ones by mere numbers. A true, absolute democracy is a threat to liberty.

The Electoral College is MORE democratic than a true, national, popular vote. EACH STATE holds its own majority-rule election, and that vote commands the state's appointment of the President. That means that the President has to give at least some attention to the people of Wyoming instead of letting Florida, Texas, New York, California, and Illinoise decide the Presidency. It ensures that the cities cannot oppress the rural areas, which cities always do. Case in point? California.

I do not want to be ruled over by some retard in Atlanta simply because there are more Atlantans than Gainesvillites. That is unfair to me. "One man one vote" is tyranny by the majority, plain and simple. One of the worst actions the Supreme Court ever did was prohibit states from drawing their own state-level constituent lines.

They actually didn't want the poor to decide who would be the leader. The electoral college means that If you are a minority in your state, then you might as well not vote.

[The New California Republic]

The whole idea is ridiculous, and reeks of ulterior unseen motives.

[Reploid Productions]

Pretty much every Californian besides those that signed:
"This stupid shit again?"

I think a large number of those who signed are also likely thinking that. It's really easy to pay people to camp out on college campuses around lunchtime and ask students to sign a petition to ban killing puppies and kicking kittens. Once your person on the ground has engaged a student it's really simple to trick them into signing a bunch of other petitions including whatever crazy shit you actually want to get onto the ballot.

Yeah, I fondly recall taking endless delight in infuriating the paid campaigners who tried to do the "Reasonable proposal, reasonable proposal, reasonable proposal, DO NOT WANT proposal" bit because I insist on taking my time reading every single one that they try to convince me to sign. You can always tell the paid ones from the truly volunteer ones that way. The volunteer ones typically take a refusal to sign one of the pile pretty well. The paid ones try to argue it and convince you to sign even after you've politely stated that "No, I don't agree with this one, I'm not going to sign it."

Dude none of this is going to occur. Just do what Californians do when this shit pops up, chuckle to yourself and continue being awesome.

^-- Pretty much this! This has been functionally a non-story out here. Because we've been through this song and dance countless times before, we already know the steps and how it ends. Spoiler alert for those just tuning in: It probably won't make it through the verification process, let alone reach a statewide vote.

[Ifreann]

The whole idea is ridiculous, and reeks of ulterior unseen motives.

You can't trust Californians. Especially not when they're trying to triplicate themselves.

[San Lumen]

I think a large number of those who signed are also likely thinking that. It's really easy to pay people to camp out on college campuses around lunchtime and ask students to sign a petition to ban killing puppies and kicking kittens. Once your person on the ground has engaged a student it's really simple to trick them into signing a bunch of other petitions including whatever crazy shit you actually want to get onto the ballot.

Yeah, I fondly recall taking endless delight in infuriating the paid campaigners who tried to do the "Reasonable proposal, reasonable proposal, reasonable proposal, DO NOT WANT proposal" bit because I insist on taking my time reading every single one that they try to convince me to sign. You can always tell the paid ones from the truly volunteer ones that way. The volunteer ones typically take a refusal to sign one of the pile pretty well. The paid ones try to argue it and convince you to sign even after you've politely stated that "No, I don't agree with this one, I'm not going to sign it."

Dude none of this is going to occur. Just do what Californians do when this shit pops up, chuckle to yourself and continue being awesome.

^-- Pretty much this! This has been functionally a non-story out here. Because we've been through this song and dance countless times before, we already know the steps and how it ends. Spoiler alert for those just tuning in: It probably won't make it through the verification process, let alone reach a statewide vote.

How do you know it wont make it through the verification process? Just because it didn't last time doesn't mean its certain not to this time.

[New Emeline]

I feel like this would create a hell of a lot of annoying paperwork if it passed. Not saying that's an argument for or against it, I would just hate to be a Californian and have to deal with it.

[Goldenson]

One of them better be the state of Jefferson or its heresy.

I made the first region for Jefferson on NS once. I had to leave it.

[Reploid Productions]

Yeah, I fondly recall taking endless delight in infuriating the paid campaigners who tried to do the "Reasonable proposal, reasonable proposal, reasonable proposal, DO NOT WANT proposal" bit because I insist on taking my time reading every single one that they try to convince me to sign. You can always tell the paid ones from the truly volunteer ones that way. The volunteer ones typically take a refusal to sign one of the pile pretty well. The paid ones try to argue it and convince you to sign even after you've politely stated that "No, I don't agree with this one, I'm not going to sign it."


^-- Pretty much this! This has been functionally a non-story out here. Because we've been through this song and dance countless times before, we already know the steps and how it ends. Spoiler alert for those just tuning in: It probably won't make it through the verification process, let alone reach a statewide vote.

How do you know it wont make it through the verification process? Just because it didn't last time doesn't mean its certain not to this time.

Because when you watch the same thing that's been in reruns for decades now, you generally get a pretty good feel for how it's going to end up. Splitting California has been the fringe obsession for a microscopic fraction of the state population since pretty much it first became a state. This is just the same crap with a slightly different coat of paint, spearheaded by a guy who already has a track record of making grandiose signature total claims that failed to pass verification. I don't really see any pressing evidence at this time to think that this attempt, spearheaded by that same guy is going to do any better than his six-state version, which also failed signature verification.

[San Lumen]

How do you know it wont make it through the verification process? Just because it didn't last time doesn't mean its certain not to this time.

Because when you watch the same thing that's been in reruns for decades now, you generally get a pretty good feel for how it's going to end up. Splitting California has been the fringe obsession for a microscopic fraction of the state population since pretty much it first became a state. This is just the same crap with a slightly different coat of paint, spearheaded by a guy who already has a track record of making grandiose signature total claims that failed to pass verification. I don't really see any pressing evidence at this time to think that this attempt, spearheaded by that same guy is going to do any better than his six-state version, which also failed signature verification.

If it continuously fails signature verification why isn't he charged with fraud? Isn't signature fraud forgery?