the vast-minority Republican party has used again and again to try to bankrupt the state

Yes, that is what they want. To bankrupt the state, while they tie the pretty damsel to the railroad tracks, and twirl their Simon Legree mustaches.

I mean, certainly none of the Democratic spending and entitlements, or the extreme anti-business regulatory systems, have anything to do with it.

If you could just kill all those Republicans, California could become a Workers Paradise, huh?

Returning California's government to a majority-rule structure will finally bring the stability this state needs to accomplish its goals.

the population-adjustment cartogram (showing the big win for Obama versus McCain last year),

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7025/statewi…

illustrates the sheer size of the Southland and why partition of the state would be applied somewhere in the vicinity (if not along the watershed boundary or sharing the watercourse near Santa Maria) of the Transverse Ranges.

(eyeglass shape — divide the state at the nosepiece, or the “bridge”)

But if you want to see additional demonstration of the problems, look here (see below).

You have seen the election-results maps before, and the cartograms adjusting for numbers of voters.

Well, the following, 2008 election results pictures illustrate the problem with California fabulously.

Map

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4362/statewide…

Cartogram

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7025/statewi…

Cyanide Nation necrotic growth!

The California and US Constitutions are not irrational. What is most irrational is lefty impatience and frustration at not getting what they want, and the approach they would likely take toward making any changes.

The same would be true for what already is open to criticism, such as what is proposed in the state for high-speed rail (as anyone familiar with California could immediately identify as defective or substandard).

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/2…

I wouldn't trust many people to make “rational improvements” and corrections to such a proposal.

You could make rational changes to an irrational situation.

I've long advocated something in this light, as one of a number of suggestions for correcting what's wrong not only in states like California but especially with the federal government. In addition to revising the set of Congressional districts to be sensible, based on natural and political boundaries (as should be the set of states!), and contiguous Census districts or ZIP code areas, another suggestion I've made (relevent here) is that the incumbency and representation problems could be solved by replacing House district elections with random selection, “jury duty” or “conscription,” of people from these (ideally new, improved) districts.

More Massachusetts Lite silliness and worse in Sacramento, sadly, is where the smart money is bet.

This is needed in the case of reform of the federal government as well. I noticed you used the best word here, the word I also insist on using — concerning the mechanics of government.

* * *

On partition of California (as opposed to creating innumerable small states, which many would exploit and debase for shallow reasons once the opportunity was presented):

“Break up the State of California into five to seven States”

“Allow Northern California to break off like it has been attempting for over 30 years.”

I've been thoroughly familiar with this as a California native (especially as I grew up in the Bay Area, where related sentiment is greater than in the Southland). Specifically, California is a state which merits consideration for partition (unlike so many other states, DC statehood people, New York City people and their “causes,” etc.), and could well be partitioned into two, three, or four states. (Those who also know the state well understand this already.)

Readers should note that things have gone so far as to have actually been the subject of a state government real-world assessment, which examined partition into two states, and which found that the state could easily be partitioned into two states that were relatively the same, with neither resulting new state being significantly richer or poorer than the other. Though the case of the northernmost counties was also favorably viewed, the unsurprising conclusion about where to partition the state was in the vicinity of the Tehachapis (that is, the Transverse Ranges) or associated watershed or similar county lines.

This is the best, most realistic assessment (or basis for a partition proposal).

http://www.csupomona.edu/~jskoga/splittingcalif…

What you would get from that larger group, especially in California, would make the Welfare Reform bill seem like 'Run, Spot, Run' by comparison.

Allow Northern California to break off like it has been attempting for over 30 years. Southern CA and Northern CA are already two different places – different cultures, economic bases, and geography. California is simply to big to govern efficiently as a state.

Come on….. We haven't added a star on the Flag since the 50s.