Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They already are 2 separate states, OP. One on the east coast, one on the west...surprised you didn't know that.
We just need to abandon the antiquated electoral college, and make gerrymandering punishable by firing squad.
Only if split appropriately, there is no need for 2 more democratic senators from each, and the associated electoral college change.
Every proposal to split Kommiefornia I've seen would end up with both products ending up blue states.
But I do feel there will be a reckoning someday with big cities effectively controlling the entire population of a state the way Chicago does Illinois or NYC the NY State.
Eliminating the electoral college effectively means that your vote in SC counts for nothing. National candidates would virtually never come to SC or even advertise here.
NorCal and SoCal have already split into two states in many respects. New York could be three different states
Problem is it would assure 4 more Democratic Senators..If CA had to split it would be coastal and inland . Leave NY as one as you can't fix broken.
Don't mean to single you out, but... you have no idea what it's like here. You have the city all liberals and the rest of the state mostly conservative. Why not split at least the electoral college votes? Long Island, where I live has more population than 38 states. Why not have representation for them?
N---
The winner take all approach used by MOST states for the electoral college does suck, changing the allocation is up to the states themselves. Maine and Nebraska allocate votes by who wins each congressional delegation, with the bonus two electors representing the senators going to the overall state popular vote winner. If every state did this, it would closer align with the popular vote winner and thus be roundly unpopular with the Republican Party. It would also encourage candidates to at least campaign in PARTS of every state. With votes allocated by district, there would be less focus on mega states.
I agree with everything except the reference to republicans. If you were able to equitably represent the country it would be to their advantage as well.
California used to be republican as well as NY. Now there isn't much benefit to even campaigning there as a republican candidate. If the rules were different the campaigns would be as well. If Cali and NY had splits like Maine and Neb, they would spend time there as our president did in Maine last time around. Seems like we could keep the electoral college but break down some of the huge states to allow for more proper representation. As I said, I live in an area of close to 8 million but we are overcome by just one city in any election. Thus we end up with such morons as DeBlasio, Cuomo, and AOC.
N---
Actually, the have represnetation in the House... Senators were originally designed to represent the states and were not elected, they were appointed by the States themselves...Don't mean to single you out, but... you have no idea what it's like here. You have the city all liberals and the rest of the state mostly conservative. Why not split at least the electoral college votes? Long Island, where I live has more population than 38 states. Why not have representation for them?
N---
Actually, the have represnetation in the House... Senators were originally designed to represent the states and were not elected, they were appointed by the States themselves...
By the way, grew up in Orange County CA and lived in CT and often worked in NYC and Boston.
I feel you...Definitely correct about the House, I was referring to the presidential election however. I am a believer in the electoral college because our country is so diverse. I don't believe it would be right for the city folk to dictate to all the rest, but I don't feel represented in the presidential and gubernatorial elections in NY currently.
N---
What say you