“It’s important because it will help us create a more responsive, more innovative and more local government, and that ultimately will end up being better for all of Californians,” said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the campaign. “The idea … is to create six states with responsive local governments – states that are more representative and accountable to their constituents.”
…But the plan has raised bipartisan hackles across the state, and opponents say it stands little chance of gaining voter approval. If it does win the support of voters, it must still be passed by Congress, which opponents say is also unlikely.
This may be the best hope for those of us who want better, less-intrusive government. Governmental institutions need to be broken up into smaller parts, both in size and scope. Narrowing scope means having different units of government for education, transportation, trash collection, etc.
It depends. Breaking up into smaller factions would do little good, if those who received special privileges in knowledge use from state and national government, continue to keep those same privileges. Because if they do, the (new) smaller factions would only become more regressive and ultimately driven to a smaller services marketplace. While that may sound “good” to some, a smaller marketplace is no good for anyone.
Would Switzerland be a good model to study? Swiss cantons are fairly autonomous and I believe Switzerland is the classic example of a country where the components (cantons) wield more power than the whole (national).
It seems obvious that Draper would prefer to jettison the parts that will, ah, underperform in coming years. And which will coincidentally also be politically dominant. But adding five more states would also add a whole lot of senators, so it looks like a non-starter to me. Live with it, californians.
Glengarry:
All we need to do is also break up Texas. I propose one state made up of the cities of Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio, and most of south Texas. Then one state for each other county. Two senators and at least one representative for each. Sounds right to me. And just as likely as breaking up California.
Max L.
Unfortunately, the decision will ultimately be made by people who are trying to insure bigger, more powerful, government.
If enough Californians wanted to manage their affairs like that, perhaps they could restructure one state government as six super-counties, amend their state constitution to accomplish as much independence as possible, and promise to each other to deal with the other as if they were a state, This would have to include how to unbundle and rebundle interaction with the Federal government, which for political reasons may not be ready yet to start “changing flags”…and possibly upending political power bases. If the experiment seems to be working, then push it all the way.
We have enough states. Border counties should be allowed secede and join other states. The parts that want a state break up now would probably be equally happy as parts of Oregon, Nevada or Arizona.
Except that northern California isn’t interested in trading connections with Los Angeles and San Francisco for a connection with Portland.
Maybe if Northern California and Southern Oregon could each secede into the same new state of Jefferson. Interesting history there:
http://www.stateofjefferson.com/
Skeptical commenters should read Arnold’s classic essay “We Need 250 States.” Or read Unchecked and Unbalanced, where he delves into some of the same issues at greater length.