Create more influence points for business to target, and make it more geographically convenient to play them against each other.
Also, increase the proportion of Republican-majority states, which helps tip the balance of the federal government further to the Right by increasing the structural advantage for Republicans in the Senate and in Presidential elections.
It would be fair to split California into 2 and then each half would get 1 senator. Otherwise you might try to play the population card, but other states would need to approve (or could veto) the process.
Er, even split into 6 states with two senators, California would be underrepresented compared to many other states.
Plus, the one thing that the Constitution expressly prohibits doing even by Constitutional amendment is changing the distribution of Senators to something where states would not have equal representation. (You can take away all the power of the Senate by Constitutional amendment, but you can't stop it from representing the states equally.)
I'm not sure why they would oppose replacing one giant Democratic-majority state with 6 states that aren't mostly Democratic-majority -- it improves the Republican structural position in the Senate and Presidential elections.
(a) Such an advantage might be transitory. Who's to say those new states will remain red, especially when they're submitted to a new level of political targeting that they never were when the state outcome was dominated by urban blue-ness? Even those tiny-state folks can recognize a two edged sword for what it is.
(b) There are small blue states too.
(c) Both effects are likely to be outweighed by issues that have nothing to do with red vs. blue. The over-represented states want to stay that way, no matter which parties are involved.
Also, don't downvote just because you disagree.
Well, yeah. Some of us still remember that California was a Republican solid state in national politics not too long ago.
> Who's to say those new states will remain red, especially when they're submitted to a new level of political targeting that the state outcome was dominated by urban blue-ness?
I can't understand what the "especially..." part of this is trying to communicate. It sounds like there is an interesting thought behind it, but I can't penetrate the way it is phrased to get to the meaning.
> There are small blue states too.
And big states, blue and red, that have powerful interests that like them being big (as well as powerful interests that don't, too be sure) which will seek to avoid balkanization getting established as a thing.
> Both effects are likely to be outweighed by issues that have nothing to do with red vs. blue. The over-represented states want to stay that way, no matter which parties are involved.
I think that claiming that this will be the dominant effect understates the degree to which national politics in the US is driven by tribal partisanship, but certainly partisanship wouldn't be the only factor influencing it.
At least, that's what would likely happen if this ever passed. Which it probably won't.