Wingnuts’ call for California’s split is disingenuous

Southcalifornia

New York Times and Los Angeles Times graphics

Just say oh, hell no!: The current Repugnican Tea Party proposition to split California into two states is meant only to help the shrinking Repugnican Tea Party in presidential elections.

It’s been in the news lately that some wingnuts in Southern California want to split the state into two states, “North California” and “South California” (a la North Carolina and South Carolina or North Dakota and South Dakota).

California is just too big to continue to (try to) manage as one state, they argue (correctly or incorrectly).

This argument has been made before many times in the history of the nation’s most populous state, and repeated efforts to split the state into two throughout the state’s history have failed.

So should this one.

As the Repugnican Tea Party traitors always do, they give benign, reasonable-sounding reasons for their plan, but in actuality, their plan serves only to benefit them politically.

With a population of more than 37 million according to the 2010 U.S. Census, for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, California has 55 electoral votes. Texas, the second-most-populous state, has 38 electoral votes. (New York, at No. 3, has 29. [Each state gets two electoral votes for its two U.S. senators, as a baseline, and top of those two baseline electoral votes, gets one electoral vote for each of its members of the U.S. House of Representatives.])

Fifty-five electoral votes — that’s a lot of electoral votes, and the Repugnican Tea Party traitors long have wanted to get their grubbies on a chunk of them for a long time now.

Q: How to do that, given that California is a solid blue state and that like most of the 50 states, California awards its electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis?

A: (1) Try to turn California from a winner-takes-all state to a state that awards electoral votes proportionately, like Nebraska and Maine do. Or, (2) try to split the state into a blue state (“North California”) and a red state (“South California”), giving the Repugnican Tea Party another red state in its column.

Don’t get me wrong: I’d be giddily happy to no longer have to share the great state of California with the Repugnican Tea Party traitors and other assorted right-wing nutjobs — but not at the expense of helping the Repugnican Tea Party traitors more easily win presidential elections.

I’m fine with proportionally allocating electoral votes within the Electoral College; I don’t like the current winner-takes-all system myself.

But unless all fucking 50 states award their electoral votes proportionately, it’s unfair (and, it seems to me, unconstitutional [specifically, violating the Constitution’s requirement of equal protection]). You don’t hear the Repugnican Tea Party traitors pushing for, say, Texas’ electoral votes to be split proportionately, do you?

Best of all would be to abolish the Electoral College altogether and elect our president on a straight national popular vote. (If our system had been set up that way, as it should have been and should be, we would have had President Al Gore instead of “President” George W. Bush, since Gore won more than half a million more votes than Bush did in the official 2000 presidential election results.) If it’s good enough for us to elect our governors on a straight popular vote, it’s good enough for us to elect our presidents this way.

In the meantime, reforms or changes that are meant to benefit one party over another are bullshit and need to be blocked.

Sure we can split California into a red state and a blue state. But only when and if we split the red states, such as Texas, into red states and blue states.

(What’s that, wingnut? Suddenly it’s not such a great fucking idea?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.)

P.S. As I painstakingly pointed out way back in April 2009, the red states take more from the federal coffers than they put into the federal coffers, yet the red states piss and moan about how horrible they have it under the blue states when the red states are, in effect, welfare states — drains on the blue states.

Similarly, Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown’s office has pointed out that the red area of the state that would comprise “South California” takes more from the state’s coffers than it puts into the state’s coffers.

(And Brown’s spokesman said that talk of splitting the state into two “is a supremely ridiculous waste of everybody’s time,” adding, “If you want to live in a Republican state with very conservative right-wing laws, then there’s a place called Arizona.” [Or Texas or…])

So again, yeah, except for the fact that it would help the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in the presidential elections, I’d be more than happy to see the blood-sucking red counties of California go their own way from those of us in the blue counties who are carrying their pathetic, worthless asses.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “Wingnuts’ call for California’s split is disingenuous

  1. oldgulph

    In 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

    All the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In a 2008 survey of 2,004 California adult residents interviewed from October 12-19, 2008, 70% of California residents and likely voters supported this change. Democrats (76%) and independents (74%) were more likely to support a change to direct popular vote than Republicans, but 61 percent of Republicans also supported this change. Among likely voters, support for this change was 6 points higher than in October 2004 (64%).

    June 8, 2011 — The California Senate Elections Committee approved the National Popular Vote bill (AB 459).

    May 19, 2011, the California Assembly passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 51–21–8 vote.

    May 4, 2011, the Assembly Appropriations Committee approved the National Popular Vote bill by a 14–2–1 vote.

    April 12, 2011, the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee approved the National Popular Vote bill by a 5–1 vote (with one abstention).

    March 31, 2011, California Assembly Democratic Caucus Chair Jerry Hill joined Republican Caucus Chair Brian Nestande in sponsoring the National Popular Vote bill in California in 2011.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes– 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s