California to break up its huge area!

RossBeckett

Project QL Intern
I read an article in Yahoo! news saying that someone had proposed splitting California into four states. That's FOUR Californias MINUS ONE state equals THREE more states(53 states). If New England decides to consolidate its SIX states into ONE, then we end up with (6-1=5) 53 -5= 48
Well 48.5 if you count in the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The New England thing is, as far as I know, not an official proposal. It is, however, in every way except politically a state. One large state divided into six.

For more on the CA article go to Yahoo.com and check it out. :)

~Steve B.
 
:roflmao:Do you have a link to that article, because I would be fascinated in reading it.

You needn't worry. Every year, mostly for fun more than for real political insight, polls are done to see if California should be divided into north and south. Every year, for the past twenty years or so, well over half the voting population had said that Calfornia is best left alone. Plus, California has a very good economy, one of the best among the 50 states, so it would be a bit foolish to divide that. However, there have been a few people that have seriously wanted to divide California. Of course, I've only heard California divided into two states, but not four. :lol

I can't speak for New England, though, because I've never lived there.
 
For decades (if not centuries), people have been saying that upstate New York should secede from downstate (New York City, Long Island, the metropolitan area) because upstate is so different. What they don't realize is that the city is the engine that makes the whole state relatively wealthy. Sure there are poor people in NYC, but there are millions of jobs.
 
That proposal has been around for eons. It crops up every once and a while but the politicans slap it down each time.
 
I read an article in Yahoo! news saying that someone had proposed splitting California into four states. That's FOUR Californias MINUS ONE state equals THREE more states(53 states). If New England decides to consolidate its SIX states into ONE, then we end up with (6-1=5) 53 -5= 48
Well 48.5 if you count in the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The New England thing is, as far as I know, not an official proposal. It is, however, in every way except politically a state. One large state divided into six.

For more on the CA article go to Yahoo.com and check it out. :)

~Steve B.

No, the New England thing is not an official proposal...or even an oft-talked about rumor. As a lifelong resident of Massachusetts, I can also assure you that New England is in NO WAY one state politically or otherwise. Each state has it's own uniqueness to it. There is a great difference going from state to state. The only thing binding the 6 New England states together is that they form the New England region - that's it. That's no different than the similarities found in the mid-Atlantic states or the Pacific Northwest states.
 
Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar's tenure as governor lasts until 2010, I believe. I don't know if tenure is the right word, considering what happened to the last governor (he got ousted from office), but the next election is in 2010.

As for your other question, Errowyn is right, although there is some recent debate about making the District of Columbia the 51st state of the United States. Was that what you were referring to when you asked if there were still 50 states?
 
No, the New England thing is not an official proposal...or even an oft-talked about rumor. As a lifelong resident of Massachusetts, I can also assure you that New England is in NO WAY one state politically or otherwise. Each state has it's own uniqueness to it. There is a great difference going from state to state. The only thing binding the 6 New England states together is that they form the New England region - that's it. That's no different than the similarities found in the mid-Atlantic states or the Pacific Northwest states.

You seem to think that I think that New England is a state? That is not the case. I was born in Mass and grew up there and Conn then moved to Cincinnati, OH. That doesn't keep me from believing that New England should be(but highly likely never to be) a state. Just think though; The figurative state of New England consists of 5 out of the 13 original colonies. In reality, however, those 5 plus Vermont(originally part of N.H.) wants to remain their own state with their own identity.

~Steve B.
Leap on!
 
You seem to think that I think that New England is a state?

Actually, I wasn't "thinking" anything but going off of what you said:

The New England thing is, as far as I know, not an official proposal. It is, however, in every way except politically a state. One large state divided into six.

Just think though; The figurative state of New England consists of 5 out of the 13 original colonies. In reality, however, those 5 plus Vermont(originally part of N.H.) wants to remain their own state with their own identity.

Actually, the 6 New England states only comprise 4 of the original 13 colonies, not 5. Maine was a part of Massachusetts until it entered the Union as the 23rd state in 1820 as a part of the Missouri compromise. Vermont was a part of New York (not New Hampshire) until 1777 when it first existed as as soverign nation (with the name New Connecticut for the first 6 months of its existence and the Republic of Vermont) for 14 years and then joined the Union as the 14th state in 1791.
 
There's a (at least one) reason why even tiny states like Rhode Island and Delaware will never give up their status as separate states--they would lose representation in the US Senate, because each state gets two senators no matter how big or small it is. Then again, both of those little states have larger populations than Wyoming or Alaska, so why shouldn't they be separate and have two senators? The states of New England would lose in a big way politically if they merged.
 
Actually, I wasn't "thinking" anything but going off of what you said:





Actually, the 6 New England states only comprise 4 of the original 13 colonies, not 5. Maine was a part of Massachusetts until it entered the Union as the 23rd state in 1820 as a part of the Missouri compromise. Vermont was a part of New York (not New Hampshire) until 1777 when it first existed as as soverign nation (with the name New Connecticut for the first 6 months of its existence and the Republic of Vermont) for 14 years and then joined the Union as the 14th state in 1791.

I forgot about the Northern Massachusetts colony(Maine). The Vermont-New York thing I did not know about. In that case, in a strictly non-political fashion, Vermont is a shared territory; being part of New York and the New England region.

The Missouri Compromise:
Missouri entered as a slave state and Maine entered as a free state. It's all a matter of balance right. All those compromises and political deals were just putting off the inevitable; The Civil War. I'm ending the Civil War discussion in this thread here and now.


~Steve B.