Thursday, November 17, 2016

Better Than Calexit - California Should Export Voters To Swing States

There were two opinion pieces in yesterday's LA Times discussing some Californians' interest in possibly seceding from the US.  A law professor in Indiana who says California will always be home, considers some of the issues with his heart on his sleeve.  A political science professor from UC San Diego uses logic and practicalities to oppose the idea.

In Alaska, the secession sentiment has always been around.  We even have an Alaska Independence Party.   And given our geographic isolation from the rest of the US, it makes some geographic sense.  The Daily Mail reported a petition to the president to have Alaska secede and rejoin Russia.  Was that one of the earlier Russian attempts to cyberjack the US?

I've heard a couple people recently talking about joining Canada which makes a lot more sense, but we know that won't happen either.

But here's my suggestion to California.  Export excess Democratic voters to swing states.

Clinton beat Trump in California by over three million votes!

In Michigan, Clinton, as of November 10, was behind by 13,000 votes only.

In Florida Clinton lost by only 120,000 votes.

In Pennsylvania Clinton lost by only 67,000 votes.

In Wisconsin Clinton lost by only 27,000 votes.

You get the picture.  California had more than enough excess votes to change the results in these four states and several more.  That's assuming that the voting machines weren't hacked.  If they were, then none of this would be necessary.

click to enlarge and focus
California Democrats could send out electoral missionaries so to speak who would go live in these states long enough to be eligible to vote.  Everything is perfectly legal.  No need to change the constitution - though that effort could continue.

You don't even have to be there a long time.  Michigan's proof of residency seems to require about 90 days.

In Pennsylvania, best as I can tell, you only have to have lived there for 30 days.

"11. Declaration I declare that 

  • I am a United States citizen and will have been a citizen for at least 1 month on the day of the next election.
  • I will be at least 18 years old on the day of the next election.
  • I will have lived at the address in section 5 for at least 30 days before the election.
  • I am legally qualified to vote.

Wisconsin requires that you've been a resident for 28 days, but there's a clause - "with no intent of moving."

Florida has a similar assumption about intent to stay.
"Legal residence-Permanent. Legal residency is not defined in law. However, over the years, the courts and the Florida Department of State/Division of Elections’ have construed legal residency to be where a person mentally intends to make his or her permanent residence.1 Evidence of such intent can come from items or activities such as obtaining a Florida driver’s license2, paying tax receipts, paying bills for residency (light, water, garbage service) and receiving mail at address, claiming the property as homestead,3 declaring the county as domicile, and doing other activities indicative or normally associated with home life. Therefore, legal residence is a convergence of intent and fact. Once residency is established for voting purposes, it is presumptively valid or current until evidence shows otherwise. See Op. Atty Gen. Fla. 055-216 (August 26, 1955). A business address is not typically a satisfactory legal residential address but if the person resides there despite the zoning ordinance, the address could become the person’s legal residential address.4"
So people spreading the gospel of Democracy there ought to make at least a one or two year commitment.  But that's how I originally conceived this anyway - a one or two year mission.  It wasn't until I saw the short time requirements that other possibilities arose.  No, let's do this honestly.  No one can be sure how long they will live in any one place anyway.  One or two years is clearly long enough.

A year or two in Wisconsin or Florida to save the United States?  It's a much better deal than going to Iraq and probably would do more to save American democracy than fighting in Iraq or any other world hotspots.

Californians CAN live in other states. They can survive.  They're much more resilient than, say, New Yorkers who don't even know how to drive or that there is civilization beyond Manhattan.   A large number of Californians are from other states anyway.  They can speak the local dialect and blend right in.  It's easier than trying to change the minds of Trump voters (though I expect Trump will do that himself in the next four years.)

After their two year commitment is up and the 2020 election is over, they can decide to stay or move back to California, though many may find that living in communities where they can walk or bike to work is kind of nice.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.