51st state?

[webny99]

But I don't think it'll come to a Congressional head -- it'll lose right here in-state.

Well, yeah, that's a given. But we can always theorize.

[triplemultiplex]

That one billionaire who keeps trying break up California needs a new hobby.

The state should have a ballot initiative to kick out that annoying bastard.

[kalvado]

That one billionaire who keeps trying break up California needs a new hobby.

The state should have a ballot initiative to kick out that annoying bastard.

But on the other hand, at 40 million people CA may be too big to state. Basic idea behind administrative subdivisions is that people in certain areas have common interest and can control their lives themselves, delegating only certain powers to bigger government. That is municipal-county-state-federal ladder  in US, and pretty similar systems in many other countries. With 40 million people, CA is more than Canada or Australia, and interests may be not that homogeneous within the area. So idea of subdividing CA may have some sense. It can come as multiple states, or as another layer of government between state and county (yes, a big legal change, but not against common sense) or something else. I wouldn't be surprised if that eventually happens with bigger states  - TX and NY subdivision is discussed as well.

[kkt]

How did you switch to Cyrillic characters, and is that what you meant to do?

I have sometimes thought California would be better served by larger counties, able to carry on some regional planning functions.  There are nine counties that are classically considered the S.F. Bay Area because they actually touch the Bay, plus a couple more that are now serving as bedroom communities.  So there's an agency that does regional planning but it has no taxing authority and no one votes for its leaders.

[sparker]

How did you switch to Cyrillic characters, and is that what you meant to do?

I have sometimes thought California would be better served by larger counties, able to carry on some regional planning functions.  There are nine counties that are classically considered the S.F. Bay Area because they actually touch the Bay, plus a couple more that are now serving as bedroom communities.  So there's an agency that does regional planning but it has no taxing authority and no one votes for its leaders.

It would take a major political effort to emulate the Portland Metro model, which features the parameters described above, in California.  The hands-down king of density within the state, San Francisco, is its own county as well -- and has no predilection for sharing its internal authority with a body encompassing a larger regional perspective. The inverse is also true; cities such as San Jose, with variegated developmental tracks geared toward the needs of the individual neighborhood -- but with a reputation for instituting planning efforts in a virtual vacuum (and being thus perceived as "not playing well with others") would, if dominating a regional entity "with teeth" (the largest incorporated entity with an active planning agency tends to do this, as evidenced by the city of Portland's dominance of Metro), draw resentment from the smaller regional cities (this occurred in the planning stages of the area's LR network, which focuses on downtown SJ while skirting or ignoring a number of smaller cities and towns).  When it's perceived that a "big dog" is hogging the agenda -- or will tend to do so if given the opportunity -- other jurisdictions become protective of their autonomy and prerogatives.  And being a relatively prosperous part of CA, often these jurisdictions, while not always able to go "hog wild" with their own plans, at least are usually able to accomplish just enough to placate their residents -- or at least keep the apparatus in business.     

[Scott5114]

On the slight chance there's a general low turnout and every inland voter shows up and things go the other way[...]

It'd be a slight chance in any other year. But low turnout in 2018? Not happening.

[webny99]

On the slight chance there's a general low turnout and every inland voter shows up and things go the other way[...]

It'd be a slight chance in any other year. But low turnout in 2018? Not happening.

Yeah, I for one am expecting it to be a high-turnout year, and given the other factors at play, that will probably harm the bill's already basically non-existent chances.
Suffice to say that this will probably get a lot of hype, but there will be a multitude of more important things to watch.