Question #1: The book states that California is like a Mega-state. The
state contains nearly 36 million people and a budget of $90 billion
dollars which is ranked the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world.
The book continues with how California has had a great track record for
sending Governors to the National Election. Out of the past ten national
elections, all but two years a Californian was on the national ballot. Is
California's population too large for one states assembly or congress?
Would splitting California into two states help avoid budget problems and
create less power to Californian Legislature? Could California be split
into Southern California including: San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles,
San Fernando, Santa Barbara, Santa Clarita and Ventura, leaving Northern
California with: Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, San Fransisco,
San Jose, Santa Cruz and Stockton? Why or Why not?
Question #2: Should California consider running a party ticket in order to
create a better relationship between Governor and Lieutenant Governor? Or
Should the ballot system remain as is, so that the top two men can keep
one another in check?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think splitting CA would not really help. If we had to split up the state's government, people would move to the part of the state that they felt more comfortable with if say the southern region got rid of the initiative or something for example. Would we keep the whole system and just split up because of population? Or would we try to start fresh, like a new state? It seems like it is the system that should be readjusted and splitting the state would not really solve enough of the problems for it to be a benefit. There would be social and other political ramifications as well, like distributing resources, what and how much we would share between the two states.
I do not think that splitting California would help anything. The state relies on it's income as a whole to run itself, even though there are major industries based in both the Northern and Southern portions of the state (such as the Silicon Valley and the entertainment industry in LA). I think that splitting would ultimately end up causing more problems - how would the current legislature decide which half of the state is responsible for which part of the debt. It would be easiest to split it down the middle, but no one wants to pay for another person's debt. I can only imagine that it would turn into a court battle over who spent the money and what it was spent on.
I don't think California should be split into two states. With the large population, we have a large advantage in federal representation and in the electoral college. Unfortunately for conservative voters, a vote for the Republican presidential candidate is almost a waste of a vote. Splitting California into 2 states wouldn't help the budget problems because our water resources are coming from the north and it would only create interstate problems. Also, I do not think it would create one liberal and one more conservative state because Northern California has San Francisco and Berkley while Southern California has Santa Barbara and L.A. so we would have 2 smaller states with similar ideologies which wouldn't change the power of the Californian legislature. The budget problems would remain the same because it would be the same types of voters and Southern California would have to have intrastate dealings in order to get water.
If the state was split it would be split east and the west and not the north and the south. Although since there is a congrresman who is actually making it very public that he wants to split the state and that we should do it because the republicans dont get the voice they want to. There should be checks and balances to a certain degree where it does not hinder ipon the effieciency of the job or position.
Post a Comment