they rejected it for likely the same reasons winter outlined. but the difference is, this time it made it to the people, not just to the tops of the republican party. i'd agree if you asked me would it fail, but that's not to say it has no chance of success. it's not so hard to frame the ballot in different ways to make sure the most people possible vote for it. to the democrats, advertise this removing the ability of the republican parties to attain a supermajority, something that leftist news has been touting as a liberal nightmare for years, to the republicans, point out the chance to not only create a new red state
but to attempt the opposite of what california has been leaning towards ever so slowly.
agreed, we'll kick that can down the road.
same, it's got barely 20% support, but it's not like there aren't points you can push to make it appeal to more people each time. look at what he's reworked it to from 6 states. he's on the right track to pull it off, and there's 5 months to rework the publicity. will he do it? no, he's too ambitious with it, and i have yet to see him frame his arguments the way they'd be the strongest. it's not impossible but he's likely to flop this once again, and then get his balance right. california itself is helping him out with that though. their own legislation will likely be the deal breaker for republicans, unfortunately, many republicans that i've heard about have already left, so his ballot is likely to suffer the mexico problem, where the people who might be able to change things, are already too busy leaving.
put simply, it won't, at least not for the most liberal section of california. in fact, if i succeeds it'l probably speed up the most liberal area's self destruct. it's half lip service. and were he honest (if he can see it at all), he'd likely get away with it far easier. the most liberal sections of california are the sections he wants to break away from the most, you can see it in the way he splits the map. but i have to object to this statement strongly. "[background=#f7f7f7]Though attempting to improve that quality of life would be the strongest case for becoming a socialist state[/background]" it would be the most well meaning looking attempt, but it would be the worst case possible. you cannot create a strong state from purely socialist policies, and were he to succeed in splitting the states, the effect of attempting such would be immediately obvious. a drop of socialism can help you, but pure socialism is legislative suicide for any state. where will you get the funds for the people you are attempting to financially support, when they have no funds to speak of? how will you house people when there is no money in your coffers for construction? how can you (humanely) curb the population, when the very policies you implement allow for everybody and their mother, from anywhere in the world, to come over and absorb resources? i could go on, but that's the gist of things. california is not going down a good path, and that very oversight, is what may well allow draper to scucceed in his attempt. why would you care about losing a supermajority, when your argument can include preventing the collapse of 2/3rds of your state from unwise policies? in addition, the argument that 55 the near guaranteed 55 electoral votes will get cut down greatly. there's potential arguments everywhere, so many that i could literally fill pages just thinking about it. hypotheticals from nearly every situation. even if i dont think he should succeed yet, it legitimately frustrates me that draper is making such poor arguments for his position, and such obvious lines across his state, when he could have drafted far more reasonable legislation, and made his clear disdain for the most liberal aspects of california less evident in his work.
Not that it's at odds, but that in the current style of califonia's socialist leanings, the way the upper class is attempting to maintain their riches, and close off other avenues, while the government is attempting to redistribute them via taxes, resembles more feudalism than the traditional socialst style. traditional usually ends up with a bunch of corrupt yahoos at the top of the ladder (Whether or not they actually care about keeping up the socialist appearance near the end of the collapse is optional, but the point stands) said structure often ends with money being inflated beyond usefulness, and a loss of supplies as the country slowly becomes worthless. california, cannot afford to do that, because they don't have complete control over american inflation, and as such, with the greed jar capped out, no more power to be had, and most of the people who've become rich in california having done so through actual honest work (though under the capitalist system), they opt for the feudalist power system. the lords being california legislature, and the taxed being not the common people, but those who actually came up through the system honestly. the entirety of the system is being kept alive through the draining of the rich, instead of the more standard draining of the average citizen, or the (unsuable in single states) printing of more money (not like we need more help there though.). the car does look more sheek with the feudal polish, but under the hood, you'll see all the same socialist policies, but many of the same possibilities remain, and all the weaknesses remain. they've just been worked into a feudal engine. breaking apart the state would demonstrate this far more swiftly, but as we've already agreed on, doing so would require a snake oil salesman for the democrats, and complete understanding of the implications, and brutal honesty for the republicans.
which is why i cited it, it remains an affirmation of california leaning socialist, but the main reason is that it says much of what i would have, likely in more words. allowing the states to break weakens democrats and republicans, but it opens up new windows into different political systems for at least 2 of the 3 states that would form from the ashes. one being a close lean into socialism, the other being a brand new red state, ruled almost entirely by republicans. and the third potentially holding value as a new swing state. it mixes up the bag just enough to give insight into 2 new systems, and breaking down powerful advantages for both parties (no more supermajority potential, and no more guaranteed 55 electoral votes) the argument for allowing california to break apart is as strong a support of socialism in california as it is against it. using it as an argument was just to round up the 3, but it remains a good point to make
the people leaving (red AND blue) are essentially dragging the problem to another state, which will likely undergo the exact same problem. running into the next state over isn't going to bring the problem to a head, it'll only make it worse in the long run as it expands through the other states. had the republicans stayed, they'd be able to combat the problem better, but as it is, while i think he could convert more than a few everyday democrats and undecided folk, i don't think there's enough red left in that state for draper's plan to have a strong base backing it.
Okay, minor point, but could you please properly capitalize your posts? You've shown that you can, so it's a little difficult trying to read your posts when you neglect that. Given how long your posts are, not having much capitalization, if any, just makes your sentences blur together.
Given how the ballot measure was vague, I rather doubt their ability to put in a persuasive argument. You could make the claim that it would be removing the ability for Republicans to gain a supermajority, except that is a bold-faced lie without much evidence to support it, and given that Tim Draper wants more Republican representation, it would not be in his best interests to make that claim. You have to consider the position that he's arguing from, and what he would actually want to say to persuade Democrats. Giving a message that could persuade Democrats would risk alienating Republicans, because using "It removes the threat of a Republican supermajority" as a selling point to Democrats might as well just be telling Republicans to give up, and telling Republicans that this could create a new red state (You know, despite the fact that this is supposedly the same team arguing against a Republican supermajority) is just going to give Democrats all the more reason to reject this. Your suggestions for the arguments to persuade either side are neglecting how the side these arguments are not catering to would react. Maybe you could get away with this in commercials and the like, but in sample ballot booklets (Which some people may not even read), there's a space to provide a singular argument in favor of this, and having two completely opposing messages is not going to look good in that booklet. Draper needs a singular, bipartisan argument to persuade voters, not completely contradictory messages designed solely for the sake of either one party or the other.
While Draper has had more sense in dividing the state in three instead of six, the problem is that he's trying to split up the state at all, no matter how many states would result from this. Even Draper claimed "Everybody wants to leave California", although it was more about businesses taking their work elsewhere. IIRC, Draper's arguments for Six Californias were exactly the same as his arguments for Three Californias now. He's done the absolute barest minimum to change from his arguments then to his arguments now, mostly just sticking to the same complaints, and grouping together the counties between those three states instead of states. If he hasn't revised his arguments after four years, I don't expect him to revise them much over the next four.
I'm aware he most wants to break away from the liberal center of California, which is the overlap I saw between his and Paul Preston's maps. I agree that it'd be accelerating that liberal segment to self-destruct, and I think that's what he's trying to do. Break away the rest of the state, leave that liberal segment to die. I don't think he is making any plans to financially support anyone; in fact, his proposal seems to suggest that it'll be up for the new governments created by this initiative. This initiative is poorly designed because it focuses only on redefining the state borders, and absolutely nothing else. Financial support, improved quality of life, and variety of political representation, among other things, all seem like possibilities that to be decided upon at a later date, by someone else. This initiative could potentially open the floodgates for all of those, yes, but I suspect the process would be too far dragged out that, by the time the state divisions would be finalized, you should have already had those provisions implemented, and then it would be too little, too late. I get what you're saying about all the problems California is facing, but I think people would want a fast solution, and Draper is not offering that at all. People don't want something that could claim to open the path to a solution; they just want the solution.
Despite my misgivings with this initiative, I realize a lot of it is ultimately speculation. The bottom line is that this initiative seems like splitting up the state for the sake of splitting up the state. Draper's arguments are poorly constructed because he hasn't given any reason to want this. He says there's a problem, and this is his answer to that, but in no way is he articulating how this could act as a solution to the problems. Otherwise, this entire initiative seems completely pointless. Of all the different things you're concerned about and could possibly see this leading to fixing, how much of that do you actually see Draper himself discussing? It's not that his arguments are poorly constructed; it's that he's not even making those arguments at all.
I think discussing the difference between socialism and feudalism is getting somewhat off-topic. Maybe I'm just too tired and not in the right state of mind to respond to that properly, and again, I'm a little wary of our exchanges getting too bloated that we may feel we have to respond to everything, but the responses themselves could end up getting a bit longer. I understand the point you're making, but I don't think I really have anything more to offer in response to that, so I'll have to leave that point aside.
Given the example of political ideologies those new states could have, do you see why I understand why Democrats are against this? It mixes up the bag, yes, but considering factors like how Republicans control the House (Not that it stops them from falsely scapegoating Dems if they're constantly keeping the GOP's hands tied), I could see Democrats wanting their own supermajority in Califorania, especially since this state is both favored and maligned across the country as a Democratic stronghold. That variety is going to hurt that stronghold. Leaning into socialism is probably the safer option than risking losing a Democratic stronghold to a gamble that could give the GOP another foothold.
If people leaving the state are dragging their problems to another state, then… well, that's their problem now. Though also keep in mind (And there are more factors just this, keep in mind), Bernie Sanders still left an impact on people in the 2016 elections, with a few organizations starting up to follow his ideals. And those aren't exclusive to California, nor can I really say they started there when this is all about a senator from Vermont. If Republicans aren't staying, and indirectly hurting Draper's support base, then that really means nothing beyond them just leaving. At most, it proves more evidence to Draper's point, that there is fewer Republican representation. And yes, you mentioned Democrats are also leaving, though I think Democrats leaving California are proportionately going to hurt their party less than Republicans leaving. Leaving does make it impossible for them to confront the problem, but it's a "problem" precisely because they're living.
Perhaps he could persuade more Democrats than Republicans. But convincing Democrats goes entirely against what he wants.
So, there is a post going around Facebook telling Democrats not to support this as it'd give Republicans 4 seats in the Senate. Apparently some people haven't been paying attention to the National Elections and the cost-benefit analysis involved (i.e. Senate seats vs electoral votes). *sigh* I just wish people could think critically and track down evidence.
Electoral votes are in fact one of the pieces of evidence cited, because it would split up California's electoral votes. Giving Republicans four seats in the Senate is not a guarantee, but the fears people are citing are not unfounded.
I mean, logically speaking, no one should support this. As outlined above, it makes Democrats have to gamble more for their seats, but if they do win that gamble they've got potentially 2 extra seats over the Republicans.
It's just a stupid idea overall, and Draper should have learned that throughout the last ten drafts of his plan.
Yeah, but this is about making just three states now, not six. Totally different.