U.S. News | Latest National News, Videos & Photos


RRelated Posts


  • JJ

    If they split what makes them think they are still part of America. Shouldn't they have to be invited to be part of America. That way the rest of the country can vote to allow them to rejoin or not.

  • Arryandan

    The USA can't even calculate their electoral votes correctly. How confusing for them.

  • RidgeRunner

    Would all three be financially and morally bankrupt, like the one is now?

  • Thomas

    If this passes, I want Virginia to split into North Virginia and the rest of Virginia. Sick and tired of our tax dollars going into the sink hole of "south" Virginia.

  • JuPMod

    Meh. Look at American history and find how many times people sought to split up states. None of them ever succeeded. (The only exception was Virginia.) I read about Draper, and it seems he is only doing this for the benefit of his company, not for the well being of the people. Hopefully most Californians know better to allow the state to be split apart.

  • Millard Farquar

    will never happen. would give CA 6 senators. the pubes will block it. although never seemed to make sense that states with a fraction of CA population get the same number of senators. that is not democracy.

  • Thao D

    It is good idea.Three state can take care population density.The states can not waste the taxes from california people

  • kaymichigan1

    The states will be named Larry, Darryl, and Darryl.


  • Lars Teeney

    As long as you're filthy rich you can waste tax-payer money by getting these frivolous and ill-conceived proposals on the ballot even though Californians have shot these state-splitting proposals down time and time again.

  • Lin Lee

    According to Draper, author of the proposal...............
    “At best, the system seems to be on a spiral down.

    At worst it’s a monopoly, and in a monopoly, they can charge whatever they want and
    provide whatever service they want,” he told TIME of the reason behind his proposal in a 2014 interview. “In a competitive environment, people get good service and they pay fair prices.”
    He also told TIME during that interview, however,
    that a proposal splitting California into three would not be as
    effective, because it would just replicate the current system, but on a
    smaller scale.

    “My belief is with two or three you’d end up with the
    same kind of environment, where you’d end up with two monopolies or
    three monopolies,” he said at the time.

  • Mo Dog

    In California, the illegal aliens do not vote, their anchor babies do.

  • Jim Bonds

    Have seen this type of thing multiple times before, but the problem is that nothing good will come out of it.

  • Keeven Lex

    "... no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State ... without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
    U.S. Constitution, Article IV section 3 clause 1.

    It doesn't matter if this so-called "referendum" passes. Per the U.S. Constitution, it can only happen if approved by the Legislature of California and that's not going to happen.

  • Lin Lee

    It would be nice if the GOP would work as hard at running this country as they are at gerrymandering it.

  • Donh

    Isn't this going to create 6 Democrat senators instead of two? Maybe if "California" stretched to San Francisco and Marin, they could end up with 4R, 2D, but with San Fran in the north, their metro population will overwhelm the rest of the north. However, with San Diego in the south, maybe they have a chance of staying R, but the city itself is getting pretty much D.

  • Prophet With Honor

    The south would have a lousy tax base. The north would get Silicon Valley and the Bay Area international shipping. Not a fair deal.

  • JuPMod

    Political-wise, Republicans no doubt would love this to happen, while Democrats would hate it. Destroy California's electoral college advantage giving Texas the advantage on top.

  • Robulator

    Wouldn't that be nice 8^]

  • rightened

    There are, in many respects, at least three different "Californias." This makes sense.

  • peevee

    The US administrative division of "state" is so 18th century/agricultural society. For the last 100 years, we are so urbanized that the WAY more optimal administrative divisions would be metro-area focused. Meaning "states" of Greater Los Angeles, Greater San Francisco, Greater San Diego etc, especially useful in the major metro areas currently divided between several states, like WDC, NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, St Louis, Kansas City, Portland OR etc, but not limited to them, because generally administration from backwards small cities which are capitals of the states is terrible and detrimental to lives of most of the people.

  • ha

    the whole US needs to consider this. the marriage just doesn't work anymore.

  • JimmyEatsHotDogs

    This is a very BAD Idea!

  • peteywheats

    Putin's plan for America is proceeding nicely.

  • Jiba

    I am ok with it as long as it doesn't call independence.

  • William Spears

    Creating two more governments is not cost savings. This will not only through the balance of power off in the Senate by creating 4 more seats, it will increase the tax burden in each new state. Rather than creating full states, they should just break the state into three provincial government structures.

  • de Guermantes

    The idea is intriguing, but at the end of the day will probably prove futile.
    As a principle, I get it. The divide between rural and urban America has become so great that people in Northern CA no longer feel connected to the people in metro areas who are so great in number that they make all the decisions regardless of what is best for small town America. It is the same frustration people in Wyoming feel when politicians in DC enact laws that only affect people whose industries and livelihoods are never seen by the people pulling the strings from far away.
    But too many issues would arise. For one, it would upset the balance of the Senate and would further alienate small states by reducing their say in congress. But more importantly, it would also run the risk of statemandering by other states for political gain.

  • Prophet With Honor

    I wonder how this looks as an economic map? GDP of each proposed State, per capita income, and so on?

  • Bill B.

    It's too big & populous to be manageable for many reasons and the southern and northern halves are like two different worlds. I lived there for a decade before returning to the PNW. Three states?! I don't know, but I've long thought it should be two states. North and South California.

  • Jackee

    LOL... California has nearly 40 million people... highly doubt this will pass for 3 California's... maybe (and that's a big maybe), I could see a north and a South.. and not any time soon

  • Hecate

    This article says California is the largest state in the US. California is third, if we are talking about land. Alaska is first, then Texas, then California. I am assuming they are referring to population. They should clarify that. Regardless I think some of this fueled by taxes and the idea of sanctuary cities. Don't think it will happen, but then again, there are those who swore that Trump would never be elected president. So there's that.....

  • End of Life Ritual

    First of all, whoever came up with that map doesn't know where San Diego is.

    Second, California needs to raise the bar for what gets on the ballot. They got ~400k signatures in a state of ~40 million people. It's ludicrous to take that and say Californians want this to be voted on. I'd argue the opposite. The other 39,600,000 people don't want to waste their time.

    Third, it's not California's decision to make. It's Washington DC's. Although I guess an official recommendation can be made to Congress through a California vote.