[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/12/6702457/six-californias-initiative-fails.html[/url]
[quote]
A proposed ballot measure to carve California into six states failed to qualify for the November 2016 ballot Friday after election officials determined that backers did not collect enough valid signatures.
The outcome is a blow to billionaire Tim Draper, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist who spent $5.2 million to put his “Six Californias” idea before voters. He had said the measure would bring government closer to the people and make it more responsive, but critics said the proposal hurt the state’s image and would be unworkable if approved.
[b]The measure needed 807,615 valid voter signatures to qualify, and the Six Californias campaign turned in nearly 1.14 million in mid-July. But several weeks of random signature checks that ended Friday determined that only 752,685 signatures were valid – almost 15,000 signatures below the threshold needed to launch a full count of every signature.[/b]
In a statement, Draper said he is convinced that the campaign turned in enough valid voter signatures to qualify his measure. He said the campaign will review signatures deemed invalid in several counties, noting that the campaign’s signature-gathering firm had projected that many more signatures would be valid than did election officials.
“It is yet another example of the dysfunction of the current system and reinforces the need for six fresh, modern governments,” Draper said. “In the meantime, we will work with the secretary of state to verify all of the signatures gathered during the petition process.”
Six-state opponents called on Draper to “move forward from this failed proposal and join in focusing on the needs of our one Golden State.”
“Six Californias was a solution in search of a problem that didn’t address any of our state’s challenges,” said former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, the chairman of the One California group opposing the measure. “The implosion of this ballot measure spares us from a two-year campaign of bashing our great state, which continues to be the nation’s bastion of innovation, diversity and progress.”
Yet the measure drew more attention from the media and late-night comics than deep voter support. [b]No one besides Draper contributed to the campaign, [/b]which in the spring paid $51,000 to Los Angeles-based Crowds on Demand, which can “organize any group, small or large, anywhere,” according to its website.
[/quote]
Nooooo, I wanted Jefferson to split. :v:
Why would they want to split California?
[QUOTE=Zatar963;46013858]Why would they want to split California?[/QUOTE]
The way it was partitioned Democrats would basically be fucked over and Republicans would gain a huge amount of sway from it.
Wasn't the Six States plan basically gerrymandering on a federal level?
[QUOTE=Zatar963;46013858]Why would they want to split California?[/QUOTE]
It's too huge and the less densely populated north I'm general STRONGLY disagrees with the highly populated south. It basically means their votes literally don't matter. Not sure about splitting into six states, though, that's a bit much.
No one actually cares about the votes split, 56 states is just a weird number.
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;46013898]It's too huge and the less densely populated north I'm general STRONGLY disagrees with the highly populated south. It basically means their votes literally don't matter. Not sure about splitting into six states, though, that's a bit much.[/QUOTE]
the way it panned out a number of extremely low density areas would be majorly conservative leaning whereas the dense city zones would be sectioned off (one or two down the middle of major areas) to spread out democrats by their areas.
Cali's two senators turn into 12 senators, granting those low populations HUGE power to individual votes compared to the dense ones, and the higher population zones get muddled by the splits in an attempt to turn them into swing-states
there are ways to cut the state into two or three more equal states, but the heavy splitting was gerrymandering at its finest
[QUOTE=Zatar963;46013858]Why would they want to split California?[/QUOTE]
Jefferson originally started it because they wanted to split off from California considering they get no say in jackshit in that state, and most of South California just bitches about wanting their water resources.
The other reason is to downsize California for the sheerfact of it's electoral college sway.
[QUOTE=Tureis;46013872][QUOTE=Zatar963;46013858]Why would they want to split California?[/QUOTE]
The way it was partitioned Democrats would basically be fucked over and Republicans would gain a huge amount of sway from it.[/QUOTE]
One has to consider, though, that as much as it sucks that Republicans would gain sway (republicans suxxx) it would actually be a move toward fairness - current California republicans seriously don't have a say in much of anything
Honestly it should be 3 states, 6 was a silly number.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;46014096]One has to consider, though, that as much as it sucks that Republicans would gain sway (republicans suxxx) it would actually be a move toward fairness - current California republicans seriously don't have a say in much of anything[/QUOTE]
I think the some parts of California should be split, but the way this was proposed had obvious favoritism towards conservatives and would weaken democrats to only holding swing states of what was left.
[QUOTE=Zatar963;46013858]Why would they want to split California?[/QUOTE]
Same reason Scotland would except for the government issues, an independent silicon valley state would be the richest per capita, highest GDP, and overall wealthiest state in the union
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.