Community Chat

[NoelSeven]

On 7/18/2014 Clover29 said:

On 7/18/2014 madzonie said:

On 7/18/2014 ennui1 said:

On 7/18/2014 happy housewife said:

What would be the reason for doing so? What would it solve? I think the federal government would have to vote on this as it would make a huge difference in congress and the senate to have 5 more states.

Ooohhh, when I think about this, I kind of like it. California would have 12 senators, instead of the two idiots we have now.

The guy has a point; CA is huge and diverse, and one state government struggles to serve all those needs. If you look at the proposed map, Jefferson and South CA have absolutely nothing in common, and could easily be separate.

Not so. If there were 6 states, there would still only be 2 from CALIFORNIA - the other states would not be "California" and would have their own senators.

Hair splitting. There would still be ten extra Senators, which is the point. And that's never going to happen.

I read somewhere that the gerrymandering is in the zigzaggy lines that make up the six "states". If they just drew straight lines, the demographic would come out very different.

I would assume it was Gerrymandered that way so those of us in rich areas would no longer have to pay for poorer areas.

Some people don't think things through.

[Clover29]

It's not going well for the initiative, judging by opinion on this thread (from people who can actually vote on it).

I would like to know where he grubbed up the 800,000+ signatures to get it started. I thought he had no chance at all of getting enough names.

[NoelSeven]

On 7/18/2014 Clover29 said:

It's not going well for the initiative, judging by opinion on this thread (from people who can actually vote on it).

I would like to know where he grubbed up the 800,000+ signatures to get it started. I thought he had no chance at all of getting enough names.

On an earlier post on this line, I told about a news report on this ballot issue. You can almost always get enough signatures to put just about anything on the ballot.

That in no way means the same people would actually vote for it.

[Nancy Drew]

I would be for it. I think that more things could get done with the smaller areas to manage. It will never happen tho.

[MickD]

Noel ~ Malcontents....love it....ITA.

[NoelSeven]

I haven't looked at the proposed map in days, but isn't "Jefferson" up north where there isn't really a viable self-supporting economy?

[Clover29]

There was a bit of a scandal in Seattle last week, when activists were collecting signatures against raising the minimum wage, but were telling people they were signing for it. Signature gathering doesn't seem to be a game with high moral standards.

[NoelSeven]

On 7/18/2014 MickD said:

Noel ~ Malcontents....love it....ITA.

[Clover29]

On 7/18/2014 Nancy Drew said:

I would be for it. I think that more things could get done with the smaller areas to manage. It will never happen tho.

Because politicians are just awesome at that whole getting things done thing

[NoelSeven]

On 7/18/2014 Clover29 said:

There was a bit of a scandal in Seattle last week, when activists were collecting signatures against raising the minimum wage, but were telling people they were signing for it. Signature gathering doesn't seem to be a game with high moral standards.

Oh, yeah! That goes on here, too. In fact, groups send out warning notices before election day saying that voting FOR a measure really means you're voting AGAINST IT. We usually have a couple of those going at the same time.