Slightly change the borders

[Tintrlvr]

Nevada and California trade some counties.  California takes Clark county (Vegas) and Nevada takes the rural regions of northern California aka the areas that want to become "Jefferson"  Las Vegas has a lot more in common with California than the rest of Nevada and rural N. California has a lot more in common with Nevada than the rest of California.  

No. The Northern Nevada one would have soooo few people, and topographically, that split wouldn't make sense.

the state would probably have a population similar to Idaho or New Mexico.  wouldn't be too under populated.

The bad thing would be that the new states would look bad (unless the Clark County like is extended through Nye County). I'd just prefer splitting Cali into 2 though, and leaving Nevada as it is.

how would you split Cali into 2?  Also, for the CA/NV split, the best would be to give California Clark county and California gives Nevada Del Norte, Siskiyou, Modoc, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Tehama, Plumas, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sierra, Sutter, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, Mono, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa counties.  After the split, California would still have 55 electoral votes but would be slightly more Democratic.  Nevada with its new boundaries would have a population of 2,382,441 and have 5 electoral votes.  In 2016 its percentages would have been 38% Clinton and 54.5% Trump.  These calculations were made by me with the assistance of redrawthestates.com.  Now Nevada would be the "electrum state" because it would be a combo of the silver state and the parts of the golden state that had the gold rush! (geology joke)  I would also contain Yosemite!

I'd split it down the natural county line which divides NorCal and SoCal. I'd also maybe create the State of Jefferson from the far north counties.

While the northern edge of SLO/Kern/San Bernardino looks neat on paper, Kern clearly belongs in NorCal with the rest of the San Joaquin Valley. SLO could go either way but looks better on paper with NorCal if Kern is with NorCal.

This. Also, Inyo, Mono, and Alpine belong im Southern California, as does, I think, SLO. Jefferson is way too insignificant to be a state. Also, the poster who suggested putting west of the Sierra counties in with Reno does not understand California.

What do you mean I don't understand Cali, I lived there and only 2 hours drive from Reno.  Redding is much more similar to Reno than it is to San Francisco.  The non Vegas parts of Nevada and the rural northern parts of California are similar in many ways.  

Culturally, sure, but in terms of how infrastructure links and topography work, that would be an appalling state. It would also have terrible finances.

If you split California into three states ((1) the Bay Area and nearby coast, (2) Southern California and (3) the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada), it works out to add Reno to the Central Valley/Sierra Nevada state.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Nevada and California trade some counties.  California takes Clark county (Vegas) and Nevada takes the rural regions of northern California aka the areas that want to become "Jefferson"  Las Vegas has a lot more in common with California than the rest of Nevada and rural N. California has a lot more in common with Nevada than the rest of California.  

No. The Northern Nevada one would have soooo few people, and topographically, that split wouldn't make sense.

the state would probably have a population similar to Idaho or New Mexico.  wouldn't be too under populated.

The bad thing would be that the new states would look bad (unless the Clark County like is extended through Nye County). I'd just prefer splitting Cali into 2 though, and leaving Nevada as it is.

how would you split Cali into 2?  Also, for the CA/NV split, the best would be to give California Clark county and California gives Nevada Del Norte, Siskiyou, Modoc, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Tehama, Plumas, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sierra, Sutter, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, Mono, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa counties.  After the split, California would still have 55 electoral votes but would be slightly more Democratic.  Nevada with its new boundaries would have a population of 2,382,441 and have 5 electoral votes.  In 2016 its percentages would have been 38% Clinton and 54.5% Trump.  These calculations were made by me with the assistance of redrawthestates.com.  Now Nevada would be the "electrum state" because it would be a combo of the silver state and the parts of the golden state that had the gold rush! (geology joke)  I would also contain Yosemite!

I'd split it down the natural county line which divides NorCal and SoCal. I'd also maybe create the State of Jefferson from the far north counties.

While the northern edge of SLO/Kern/San Bernardino looks neat on paper, Kern clearly belongs in NorCal with the rest of the San Joaquin Valley. SLO could go either way but looks better on paper with NorCal if Kern is with NorCal.

This. Also, Inyo, Mono, and Alpine belong im Southern California, as does, I think, SLO. Jefferson is way too insignificant to be a state. Also, the poster who suggested putting west of the Sierra counties in with Reno does not understand California.

What do you mean I don't understand Cali, I lived there and only 2 hours drive from Reno.  Redding is much more similar to Reno than it is to San Francisco.  The non Vegas parts of Nevada and the rural northern parts of California are similar in many ways.  

Culturally, sure, but in terms of how infrastructure links and topography work, that would be an appalling state. It would also have terrible finances.

If you split California into three states ((1) the Bay Area and nearby coast, (2) Southern California and (3) the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada), it works out to add Reno to the Central Valley/Sierra Nevada state.

But Sacramento/Stockton/Merced definitely belong with the Bay Area, leaving the Sierra/Central Valley state impoverished and with bizzare borders.

[muon2]

But Sacramento/Stockton/Merced definitely belong with the Bay Area, leaving the Sierra/Central Valley state impoverished and with bizzare borders.

I'm surprised at this. I was in the Fresno-Merced part of the Central Valley a few years ago and Merced seemed very much more part of the Fresno area than the Bay area. I've also assumed that though Tracy may be an exurban part of Bay Area, Stockton was more aligned with Modesto in the Valley. Has that changed so much this decade?

[Idaho Conservative]

Nevada and California trade some counties.  California takes Clark county (Vegas) and Nevada takes the rural regions of northern California aka the areas that want to become "Jefferson"  Las Vegas has a lot more in common with California than the rest of Nevada and rural N. California has a lot more in common with Nevada than the rest of California.  

No. The Northern Nevada one would have soooo few people, and topographically, that split wouldn't make sense.

the state would probably have a population similar to Idaho or New Mexico.  wouldn't be too under populated.

The bad thing would be that the new states would look bad (unless the Clark County like is extended through Nye County). I'd just prefer splitting Cali into 2 though, and leaving Nevada as it is.

how would you split Cali into 2?  Also, for the CA/NV split, the best would be to give California Clark county and California gives Nevada Del Norte, Siskiyou, Modoc, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Tehama, Plumas, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sierra, Sutter, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, Mono, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa counties.  After the split, California would still have 55 electoral votes but would be slightly more Democratic.  Nevada with its new boundaries would have a population of 2,382,441 and have 5 electoral votes.  In 2016 its percentages would have been 38% Clinton and 54.5% Trump.  These calculations were made by me with the assistance of redrawthestates.com.  Now Nevada would be the "electrum state" because it would be a combo of the silver state and the parts of the golden state that had the gold rush! (geology joke)  I would also contain Yosemite!

I'd split it down the natural county line which divides NorCal and SoCal. I'd also maybe create the State of Jefferson from the far north counties.

While the northern edge of SLO/Kern/San Bernardino looks neat on paper, Kern clearly belongs in NorCal with the rest of the San Joaquin Valley. SLO could go either way but looks better on paper with NorCal if Kern is with NorCal.

This. Also, Inyo, Mono, and Alpine belong im Southern California, as does, I think, SLO. Jefferson is way too insignificant to be a state. Also, the poster who suggested putting west of the Sierra counties in with Reno does not understand California.

What do you mean I don't understand Cali, I lived there and only 2 hours drive from Reno.  Redding is much more similar to Reno than it is to San Francisco.  The non Vegas parts of Nevada and the rural northern parts of California are similar in many ways.  

Culturally, sure, but in terms of how infrastructure links and topography work, that would be an appalling state. It would also have terrible finances.

If you split California into three states ((1) the Bay Area and nearby coast, (2) Southern California and (3) the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada), it works out to add Reno to the Central Valley/Sierra Nevada state.

But Sacramento/Stockton/Merced definitely belong with the Bay Area, leaving the Sierra/Central Valley state impoverished and with bizzare borders.

the sierra/central valley state would have all of the water though so could get money by selling it to coastal cities.  That would make up for not getting tax dollars from those areas.  Also, I agree that Sacramento belongs in the bay area but not Placer and El Dorado counties. 

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

But Sacramento/Stockton/Merced definitely belong with the Bay Area, leaving the Sierra/Central Valley state impoverished and with bizzare borders.

I'm surprised at this. I was in the Fresno-Merced part of the Central Valley a few years ago and Merced seemed very much more part of the Fresno area than the Bay area. I've also assumed that though Tracy may be an exurban part of Bay Area, Stockton was more aligned with Modesto in the Valley. Has that changed so much this decade?

This area is increasingly becoming to San Francisco what Riverside/San Bernardino is to LA. Even Fresno is likely to be this way with the completion of high speed rail.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Nevada and California trade some counties.  California takes Clark county (Vegas) and Nevada takes the rural regions of northern California aka the areas that want to become "Jefferson"  Las Vegas has a lot more in common with California than the rest of Nevada and rural N. California has a lot more in common with Nevada than the rest of California.  

No. The Northern Nevada one would have soooo few people, and topographically, that split wouldn't make sense.

the state would probably have a population similar to Idaho or New Mexico.  wouldn't be too under populated.

The bad thing would be that the new states would look bad (unless the Clark County like is extended through Nye County). I'd just prefer splitting Cali into 2 though, and leaving Nevada as it is.

how would you split Cali into 2?  Also, for the CA/NV split, the best would be to give California Clark county and California gives Nevada Del Norte, Siskiyou, Modoc, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Tehama, Plumas, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sierra, Sutter, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, Mono, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa counties.  After the split, California would still have 55 electoral votes but would be slightly more Democratic.  Nevada with its new boundaries would have a population of 2,382,441 and have 5 electoral votes.  In 2016 its percentages would have been 38% Clinton and 54.5% Trump.  These calculations were made by me with the assistance of redrawthestates.com.  Now Nevada would be the "electrum state" because it would be a combo of the silver state and the parts of the golden state that had the gold rush! (geology joke)  I would also contain Yosemite!

I'd split it down the natural county line which divides NorCal and SoCal. I'd also maybe create the State of Jefferson from the far north counties.

While the northern edge of SLO/Kern/San Bernardino looks neat on paper, Kern clearly belongs in NorCal with the rest of the San Joaquin Valley. SLO could go either way but looks better on paper with NorCal if Kern is with NorCal.

This. Also, Inyo, Mono, and Alpine belong im Southern California, as does, I think, SLO. Jefferson is way too insignificant to be a state. Also, the poster who suggested putting west of the Sierra counties in with Reno does not understand California.

What do you mean I don't understand Cali, I lived there and only 2 hours drive from Reno.  Redding is much more similar to Reno than it is to San Francisco.  The non Vegas parts of Nevada and the rural northern parts of California are similar in many ways.  

Culturally, sure, but in terms of how infrastructure links and topography work, that would be an appalling state. It would also have terrible finances.

If you split California into three states ((1) the Bay Area and nearby coast, (2) Southern California and (3) the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada), it works out to add Reno to the Central Valley/Sierra Nevada state.

But Sacramento/Stockton/Merced definitely belong with the Bay Area, leaving the Sierra/Central Valley state impoverished and with bizzare borders.

the sierra/central valley state would have all of the water though so could get money by selling it to coastal cities.  That would make up for not getting tax dollars from those areas.  Also, I agree that Sacramento belongs in the bay area but not Placer and El Dorado counties. 

MSAs shouldn't be split across states Placer and El Dorado definitely belong with Sacramento. Also, Southern California (60% of CA's population) gets it's water from east of the Sierras and the Colorado, and the Bay Area probably would have water rights so selling water wouldn't work.

[muon2]

But Sacramento/Stockton/Merced definitely belong with the Bay Area, leaving the Sierra/Central Valley state impoverished and with bizzare borders.

I'm surprised at this. I was in the Fresno-Merced part of the Central Valley a few years ago and Merced seemed very much more part of the Fresno area than the Bay area. I've also assumed that though Tracy may be an exurban part of Bay Area, Stockton was more aligned with Modesto in the Valley. Has that changed so much this decade?

This area is increasingly becoming to San Francisco what Riverside/San Bernardino is to LA. Even Fresno is likely to be this way with the completion of high speed rail.

I'm not sure I buy that. Just because there are an increased number of commuters using HSR isn't going to put the Valley in the Bay Area. There are people who use Acela to commute from Philly to NYC, but that doesn't make Philly part of the NYC metro. I suspect if HSR provides the commuting ease that it might, Fresno to SF/SJose ends up a bit like Philly to NYC.

It would take a significant shift in economic dependence toward the activities of the Bay for the SJV to be considered part of it. The strong reliance on agriculture for the economics of the SJV isn't going away any time soon. I definitely can't see it in this 2020 cycle. Perhaps 20 years from now, but I want to think of the areas as they might be grouped today, not in 2040.

[Idaho Conservative]

Nevada and California trade some counties.  California takes Clark county (Vegas) and Nevada takes the rural regions of northern California aka the areas that want to become "Jefferson"  Las Vegas has a lot more in common with California than the rest of Nevada and rural N. California has a lot more in common with Nevada than the rest of California.  

No. The Northern Nevada one would have soooo few people, and topographically, that split wouldn't make sense.

the state would probably have a population similar to Idaho or New Mexico.  wouldn't be too under populated.

The bad thing would be that the new states would look bad (unless the Clark County like is extended through Nye County). I'd just prefer splitting Cali into 2 though, and leaving Nevada as it is.

how would you split Cali into 2?  Also, for the CA/NV split, the best would be to give California Clark county and California gives Nevada Del Norte, Siskiyou, Modoc, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen, Tehama, Plumas, Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sierra, Sutter, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, Mono, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa counties.  After the split, California would still have 55 electoral votes but would be slightly more Democratic.  Nevada with its new boundaries would have a population of 2,382,441 and have 5 electoral votes.  In 2016 its percentages would have been 38% Clinton and 54.5% Trump.  These calculations were made by me with the assistance of redrawthestates.com.  Now Nevada would be the "electrum state" because it would be a combo of the silver state and the parts of the golden state that had the gold rush! (geology joke)  I would also contain Yosemite!

I'd split it down the natural county line which divides NorCal and SoCal. I'd also maybe create the State of Jefferson from the far north counties.

While the northern edge of SLO/Kern/San Bernardino looks neat on paper, Kern clearly belongs in NorCal with the rest of the San Joaquin Valley. SLO could go either way but looks better on paper with NorCal if Kern is with NorCal.

This. Also, Inyo, Mono, and Alpine belong im Southern California, as does, I think, SLO. Jefferson is way too insignificant to be a state. Also, the poster who suggested putting west of the Sierra counties in with Reno does not understand California.

What do you mean I don't understand Cali, I lived there and only 2 hours drive from Reno.  Redding is much more similar to Reno than it is to San Francisco.  The non Vegas parts of Nevada and the rural northern parts of California are similar in many ways.  

Culturally, sure, but in terms of how infrastructure links and topography work, that would be an appalling state. It would also have terrible finances.

If you split California into three states ((1) the Bay Area and nearby coast, (2) Southern California and (3) the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada), it works out to add Reno to the Central Valley/Sierra Nevada state.

But Sacramento/Stockton/Merced definitely belong with the Bay Area, leaving the Sierra/Central Valley state impoverished and with bizzare borders.

the sierra/central valley state would have all of the water though so could get money by selling it to coastal cities.  That would make up for not getting tax dollars from those areas.  Also, I agree that Sacramento belongs in the bay area but not Placer and El Dorado counties. 

MSAs shouldn't be split across states Placer and El Dorado definitely belong with Sacramento. Also, Southern California (60% of CA's population) gets it's water from east of the Sierras and the Colorado, and the Bay Area probably would have water rights so selling water wouldn't work.

Placer and El Dorado would go much better with Jefferson than California.  I am from that area and know the politics of each county.  Sacramento (city) is full of gays, crime, and is very racially diverse and heavily democratic while Placer and El Dorado and your typical expensive, soccer mom SUV, churchgoing, white bread diversity, republican suburbs.  Also, many metro areas are split across state lines.  The ones I can think of are Portland, Spokane, Omaha, Kansas city, Saint Louis, Memphis, Charlotte, Louisville, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, and Washington DC is split among the district itself and suburbs in Maryland and Virginia.  KC, Philly, New York, and Washington are probably the most split metro areas where there is a real significant.  So yes, metros can be split and it wouldn't be that bad of a split, Placer and El Dorado combined have only a quarter of metro Sacramento's population.  However, real estate in those counties would skyrocket as everyone would want the low taxes in the state of Jefferson.