John Fund, a former member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, penned a piece in the National Journal where he said it would be better for California to split into several states than to become an independent nation.
This proposal to split California into several states has been floated in the past, as Fund points out. Notably, a failed 2016 ballot initiative funded by venture capitalist Tim Draper tried to split the state into six new states.
A one-for-six split would remedy one beef Californians have -- gross underrepresentation in the Senate and Electoral College. At the Electoral College level, one voter in Wyoming has three times the "strength" of a California voter.
But splitting California will not remedy the fact that DC has drifted from a small government of a republic to an oligarchic empire.
When the US was founded, there was one Congressional representative per 35,000 citizens. Now that number is one representative per 700,000 citizens. That's the definition of "oligarchy".
When the US was founded, Washington and Jefferson urged the nation to "steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world" and to have "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." Now DC is on the hook to defend Turkey, Estonia, Bulgaria, Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Cuba (!), Bolivia, Brazil and many, many others.
I'm not sure how Calexit or "Calsplit" will end up, but Hunt ended his piece nicely :
Of course, it’s unlikely that California will ever be divided. It’s even more unlikely that it would cut its ties to the rest of the nation and become a separate country. But the debate on both ideas is healthy. To what extent should we let arbitrary political boundaries established many decades ago curb our imagination and prevent us from creative solutions to our problems?