WI: State of Jefferson

As a resident of Jefferson, I can say that most of the true angst at the time was the serious lack of development the area had suffered by the hands of Salem and Sacremento. There wasn't a single paved road, and no electricity. The rough terrain, and lack of good roads actually made it pretty dangerous for area farmers to move their produce, and decreased the area they could sell too.

As soon as WW2 started however, the people of the area shut up about the conditions, and wouldn't you know it, the federal government came to the rescue. The idea of an isolated area on the west coast, where the Japanese could land (LOL), led to the construction of several roads and railroads, connecting the area with the rest kf the country.

Finally area farmers could safely sell their crops, and the wonders of the 20th century made available. Salem and Sacremento still ignored the area, but the people their could have a decent livelyhood.

And thats why, from a Jeffersonian.
 
In discussing whether Jefferson would be a red or blue state, it's probably worth remembering that California in OTL was a reliably Republican state until 1992. That changed partly because California changed, and partly because the Republican Party changed. The same could happen to Jefferson; it might start out Republican but become Democratic or at least a swing state because of demographic change.

Does anyone have a rough calculation of what the population of Jefferson would be in 2013, based on OTL figures? Also, what would be the capital city? Looking at a map, it appears the biggest cities in the state would be Redding, Chico, and Medford.

The region that makes up Jefferson is still most Republican ore republican leaning. I'm guessing that the state would largely remain Republican.

If we are using the maximum extent of the current proposals, then the state of Jefferson would have a population of about 1,760,524. As for the state capital I'm biased towards wanting it to be Chico, mostly because I grew up there and find it to be nice middle ground between the more conservative agricultural regions and the more liberal coast. That being said, it had a population of 9,287 back in the forties putting it ahead of Redding and Medford, it already had a state university, and you have the Southern Pacific Depot all of which add to its appeal as a state capital. If Chico manages to become the capital of Jefferson then you can expect an increase in the population and likely see Butte county become a blue county or at least not as reliably red (which it hasn't been in recent years).
 
How many congressmen would Jefferson be entitled? Any idea for possible Senators or Governors?
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
I'm not entirely sure why you are telling me to calm down. I really didn't think I came off as being abrasive or aggressive (I don't believe I used any unnecessary capitalization or a single exclamation point) and I never once compared the gripe of many northern Californians with the actual plight of oppressed peoples like those in Tibet or Darfur. To do so would be ridiculous and unseemly. I was stating a simple fact that there are many northern Californians aren't fond of being politically dominated by the south and then you suddenly start telling me to calm down.

Because as a northern Californian, you belong to a group that politically dominates an enormous number of people, and continue to derive benefits from that status while simultaneously complaining about comparatively trivial issues.
 
I disagree, It means 2 more Senators and at least 1 more Rep in the House, which could start and end certain political careers, and change the side of a close vote.

Plus, it establishes a more modern precedent for carving states out of other states. This could ripple into other states having their Government's treating their unwanted territory (not unwanted exactly, can't find a good term) differently to avoid them being amputated by a Congress.
States have Constitutional protection from federal dismantlement, so California/Oregon couldn't be legally forced to give up the territory. It could, however, be extorted through the withholding of federal funding.
 
Definitely interesting to see how the divide would affect other areas' outlooks. LA and SoCal may try and split off to form their own state as a reaction. And as every CGP Grey viewer knows, the Texas's constitution reserves it the right to divide itself into FIVE different states, which would definitely have an impact on the Senate and House if they decided to make use of it.
 
Definitely interesting to see how the divide would affect other areas' outlooks. LA and SoCal may try and split off to form their own state as a reaction. And as every CGP Grey viewer knows, the Texas's constitution reserves it the right to divide itself into FIVE different states, which would definitely have an impact on the Senate and House if they decided to make use of it.
It's actually the US resolution annexing Texas, not the state constitution, which makes it dubious whether the law's effect has persisted through Texas seceding and being readmitted.
 
Er, seriously? You seem to be getting way more worked up about telling him to calm down than General_Finley ever was in his post. And it's not as though there was anything really objectionable in it in the first place.

I've noticed this in a lot of people. Usually, the ones telling others to stop freaking out are actually the ones that need to stop freaking out.
 
Going back to the original question, I doubt that Jefferson would be much of a swing state, given that the population might mean maybe 5 electoral votes (3 congressmen & 2 senators). And just because you've created a new state doesn't automatically guarantee the infrastructure will improve, you still need the money for roads, electricity, water, etc.

One question I have is do both Alaska and Hawaii become states and push the number to 51 states, does one of those 2 get left out, or is a third state added to make it 52?
 
Have there been any elections or votes since the 40's that could have been swayed by the addition of such a state? An election swings because someone gets those few Jefferson Electoral votes? The Senator from the great state of Jefferson runs for President and tips the scales?
 
Have there been any elections or votes since the 40's that could have been swayed by the addition of such a state? An election swings because someone gets those few Jefferson Electoral votes? The Senator from the great state of Jefferson runs for President and tips the scales?

California was basically the Republican Pennsylvania from 1952 to 1992. The Democrats only won it in 1964. Without Jefferson, California is going to go Democratic a lot more often; it'll probably only go Republican in 1980 and 1984.
 
Going back to the original question, I doubt that Jefferson would be much of a swing state, given that the population might mean maybe 5 electoral votes (3 congressmen & 2 senators). And just because you've created a new state doesn't automatically guarantee the infrastructure will improve, you still need the money for roads, electricity, water, etc.

One question I have is do both Alaska and Hawaii become states and push the number to 51 states, does one of those 2 get left out, or is a third state added to make it 52?

Puerto Rico or Washington D. C. The latter is usually frowned upon in political circles, but I think a case could be made that if Jefferson is more Republican, than the Democrats could demand the solidly Democratic D. C. to balance things out.
 
Top