Community Chat

[september]

On 7/18/2014 Clover29 said:

On 7/18/2014 september said: I don't think it's an outrageous thing to consider. I'm from New England originally, where states are quite small in area, and some of them don't have sizeable populations. But splitting California into 6 states is taking it too far. Two, or three at most, would make more sense.

For every new state we make out of splitting CA, can we combine two in New England?

I'm not being serious. But I'm surprised some nutjob doesn't want to do it, to counter the argument that it creates too many stars for the flag to look nice.

Well...why not? Maine+New Hampshire=North New England.

Vermont+Connecticut=Central New England

Massachusetts+Rhode Island= South New England.

I can see this.

[PamB226]

Not for it, it's a stupid idea and it's never going to happen!

[Tinkrbl44]

On 7/18/2014 Marienkaefer2 said:

I don't think Californians are nuts! I love California.

Should we talk about some "nutty" things that are done or proposed in other states??

Many states have this kind of "division", countries too. It's normal when you have large areas with many diverse people.

In Arizona, there's long been the movement for southern Arizona to "secede" and become Baja Arizona.

In Oregon, I remember people in eastern Oregon saying they relate more to Idaho and would favor becoming part of that state.

Same with the differences between western and eastern Washington.

Eta: I'm not advocating the split. I just think this comes up.sometimes.

It's not just that ...... people who live in the northern U.S. don't talk about "northern food" like people in the south talk about "southern food"!

[Big Sister]

I'm in Orange County and I don't think the splitting off will ever happen. JMHO

[just bee]

My only concern would be the change of our flag. But I lived in Northern California for almost 25 years and felt it was unfair that so many of the state's citizens had no voice because votes in the major metro areas (SF Bay Area and LA) ruled.

California is more than Los Angeles and San Francisco.

[NoelSeven]

On 7/19/2014 just bee said:

My only concern would be the change of our flag. But I lived in Northern California for almost 25 years and felt it was unfair that so many of the state's citizens had no voice because votes in the major metro areas (SF Bay Area and LA) ruled.

California is more than Los Angeles and San Francisco.

SF does not have a large population, especially compared to other parts of the state. SF is not considered a "major metro area."

How do you figure SF ruled?

California's population is 38.3 million.

SF population is 825,863. That's more than 38 to 1.

[NoelSeven]

On 7/19/2014 just bee said:

My only concern would be the change of our flag. But I lived in Northern California for almost 25 years and felt it was unfair that so many of the state's citizens had no voice because votes in the major metro areas (SF Bay Area and LA) ruled.

California is more than Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The population of San Diego, California (in SoCal) was 1.338 million ( in 2012).

Significantly more people than SF in that one city alone, and yet you think SF calls the shots on elections. I say that's nonsense.

[Teacups]

I am ashamed to say I was born there.

[azterry!]

On 7/19/2014 NoelSeven said:

On 7/19/2014 just bee said:

My only concern would be the change of our flag. But I lived in Northern California for almost 25 years and felt it was unfair that so many of the state's citizens had no voice because votes in the major metro areas (SF Bay Area and LA) ruled.

California is more than Los Angeles and San Francisco.

SF does not have a large population, especially compared to other parts of the state. SF is not considered a "major metro area."

How do you figure SF ruled?

California's population is 38.3 million.

SF population is 825,863. That's more than 38 to 1.

Hi noel!

Dontcha know liberal votes count more than conservative votes?

[Teacups]