California splitting into three separate States. What do you think?

It won't happen.

Based on the most recent precedent from 1863, it appears most likely that the U.S. Constitution requires a state's legislature—along with the Congress—to consent before that state is split into two or more new states.  And I don't see either the California legislature nor Congress giving up the power California has as a whole state.

Texas is actually the only state with power to split itself into multiple states without Congressional approval.  As many as five states, a privilege given to it as a unique condition of its annexation to the Union in 1845.

I can't say either way - not enough info.

Looking at the proposed map, I wondered at the reasoning behind those boundaries.

How would it work for voting demographics? Three new voting blocks could change the results of presidential elections and thus affect the whole of the USA.

How would it affect coordination of emergency services along the San Andreas fault-line?

What are the differences between wealth and poverty in the different regions? Would the wealthier areas keep more of their taxes to themselves, and the poorer areas have less of a safety net?

How would it affect local state laws?

Would populations migrate towards or away from these changes?

For some things, a higher degree of local democratic control is preferable, especially in ecological matters.
It gives people more autonomy over their lives.
For other things, collective power and size helps all. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at June 13, 2018 9:31 PM MDT

"California" will be it's own little world. Kind of like it is now.  DeNero will be the Governor no doubt. 
Being a republican will be against the law.  They will build wall around the state and require permits to pass through.  You can move there if a panel of "experts" say you can.  
Joy Behar will be the State prosecuting attorney and lock up all republicans. All immigrants will be shipped to Northern and southern California because they would block the view of the ocean.
(or some other excuse).   

I don't think that will happen. But if it does I don't think it will be good for us.

That was an old joke even when I first heard it back in the 50s.

They wanted to divide the state at San Francisco. But Santa Barbara wanted to be in Northern California, so they moved the line. Then another city wanted to be part of Northern California, and another, and eventually San Diego wanted to join Northern California. So Los Angeles was the only place left in Southern California, and that was the only thing they really wanted, but they didn't want to give Los Angeles the power of a state, so they dropped the plan.

If they were going to become three separate states, you would think that at least two of them would not have the name California in it, although there is West Virginia and Virginia, but no East Virginia.  I can't see this happening, though.

Look how the boundaries are drawn.  San Diego gets a state, LA gets a state, and SanFran gets a state.  Six senators controlled by those three xxxxxxxxs.  

It's a no go.  Make the entire coast one state, fine and dandy.

If the voters go for it, which I don't think they will, it would require approval by the U.S. Congress. This post was edited by Thriftymaid at June 13, 2018 9:29 PM MDT

I think it would be best if it just cracked off into the Pacific Ocean. ;+

Dumb. Not going to happen. Dream on.

It would have stood a slightly better chance had Hillary won but she didn't so the pressure is lessened to break up the Democrat's grip on the state.

Well, at least you would be able to buy a compass in L.A. They don't sell compasses in L.A. now. Nobody wants to buy something that only points to San Francisco.