Do states such as California and Texas weld too much power?

This thread is a spin off of a discussion Pram and I were having over in the New States? thread.



Every 10 years the US Census Bureau conducts a population audit. They are forbidden to ask if a person is here legally or illegally. This is why we have no idea, only estimates, of how many people are here illegally. However, the results of this census are what determine how many electoral votes a state recieves and how many seat in the US House of Representives a state has. The result would seem to be that states such as California and Texas have more power then they are consitiutionally allowed.

Do California and Texas hold a disproportionate amount of power and is this power wrongfully gained through illegal immigration? If so, what is to be done about it? Thoughts?

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

I don't think there's any question that it is, if only in part, garnered through the obscene level of illegal immigration California and Texas both suffer...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Well, questions of illegal immigration aside, dividing California or Texas into multiple states will only increase the political power of the current residents: their number of representatives will stay the same but they'll get 2 new senators for each new state you make out of them.

isn't it unconstitutional to divide states or something like that?

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

It depends...

From the US Constitution, Article 4, Section 3:
"no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislature of the states concerned, as well as of the congress."

So, technically, if the state legislature(s) and Congress approve, then its allowed. The creation of West Virginia during the Civil War is an interesting example of this kind of thing.

I agree with what Dilettante said. Norther California will become even more liberal, but southern Cali will become a toss-up.

I really dount illegal immigrants are bothering to participate in the census.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Depends. A lot of NorCal is VERY conservative. It could be interesting to see how the two states would differ from each other.

I suspect Texas is the same way. West and East Texas are remarkably different from each other. Are those citizens in Amarillo, Austin, and El Paso all being served effectively by their senators?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

well then the real question is would either legislature let this happen?

but as for the original post, I'm actually against this idea. It sounds almost like gerrymandering on a grand scale.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I sincerely doubt it. While splitting them up might increase the average power of the residents on a federal level (by increasing the congressman-to-voter ratio) it would substantially decrease the local power of the state-legislature, so I don't see them buying it.

And anyway, I can't imagine that a Congress with a democratic majority would ever approve a breaking up of California since it would also be also guaranteed to result in a new right-leaning state (unless they run the line right through L.A.).

Quite so. Also, 50 is such a nice round number for states and having exactly 100 Senators makes the political math much easier for folks like me
...on the other hand, if we decide to break up Texas and California we could always compensate by squeezing together some of those little states in New England...

we could actually have a lot of fun with this, what states should we combine or break up? I vote to making North and South Dakota one big Dakota.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

Oh, non, that's so predictable. Let's be more exciting.
How about we combine New Hampshire and Hawaii? Michigan exists in two separate parts, why not New Hampwaii?

Or maybe Vermont and Mississippi...that should lead to some lively debates in the state legislature. Full-contact legislation on C-SPAN

For me so long as TX continues to hold a conservative vote and we keep voting Red i say let it stay.

The more the CB tallies our folk to a greater number the more electoral votes we'll get at the national level.

For me even if the total votes were drastically cut and the population of only legal folk was tallied i think it hurts us as no matter what CA is always gonna vote Blue.

Obviously this is not good as its not exactly what our constitution meant to happen but having a partial fixture only makes it even worse.

Speaking of breaking up California...

Breaking Up California's Electoral Votes (could happen)

san fran can secede anytime they want and good riddance...

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Marin and parts of Napa would still be intellectually viable, but East Bay, South Bay and Peninsula bedroom communities would eventually lapse into cultural wastelands similar to those in Southern California. Like NYC, San Francisco would soon realize a city entrance tax as being a good thing to keep the riff raff out.