I find the idea that political and cultural boundaries should align to be a very sad and unimaginative one.

(Not suggesting you hold an opposite view.)

I agree entirely. I like the fact that as a nation and even in most localities there are people with diverse views, backgrounds, etc. and we all have to figure out how to make this whole living together thing work (or move).

I don't think there's an example of a place that attempted to align in such a way and magically it worked. Even within places where people agree broadly about the role of government, etc. Such as NYC. There are always the same disagreements about how we run the way we live, such as the NYC mayoral primary that happened in 2013.

How else could you do it? Tax only the people in favor of infrastructure improvements and prevent everyone else from using them? Only arrest people using recreational drugs if they voted against legalization?

You could do it the way it is done now. Geographically.

What does geography have to do with good government?

Geography has everything to do with government. Where you are geographically determines how you are governed and who governs you.

psuter said, "I find the idea that political and cultural boundaries should align to be a very sad and unimaginative one." Which I took to mean that psuter believes realigning CA along cultural or political boundaries (like saying, "republicans over here, democrats over there") is very sad and unimaginative.

To which you responded "How else could you do it? Tax only the people in favor of infrastructure improvements and prevent everyone else from using them? Only arrest people using recreational drugs if they voted against legalization?"

Which is why I tried to answer your question "How else could you do it?" by pointing out another way it can be done is, you keep things the way they are now meaning, you arrest, tax, and govern everyone equally depending on where they are standing (some things being illegal in some jurisdictions and not in others).

It seems like there's some sort of breakdown in understanding between the two of us here.

I'm looking to adverbialize a gerund. Gerrymanderingly? Gerrymandrically? Gerrymanderibly?

How it's done now is by politicians counting votes and setting the boundaries for their own benefit. This would be another--more permanent--opportunity for them to do that.

That's really well put. I hadn't thought of it in that way. It seems pretty funny someone would say "What's that? We can't just redraw the districts to get what we want? Fine, let's redraw entire states."

> cultural gap between San Francisco and Los Angeles

I'm curious as to what you think this gap is.

Ethnic makeup and degree of local homogeniety. Urban density. Use of public transportation. Historical points of interest. Dominant industries. Automobile culture. Access to green space. Consumer habits. Weather patterns. Air quality. Even the color of the surrounding landscape is different. Is it not clear to you that they just "feel" like completely different places, and that different kinds of people live there?

It is not clear to me that the difference between Downtown SF and Downtown LA is bigger than, say, Downtown SF and Hunter's Point.

I mean, take someone from SF and have them live in Stockton for a month, and Fresno for a month, and LA for a month, and see which cultural divide is greatest.

The point was that the differences within different parts of California are greater than between some cities in different states.