I'm not sure how that couldn't be an argument to break up all the large states. It would just turn the senate into another house of representatives.

And it's a weird way to fix the senate if you wanted it to be fixed. You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all. You could ask for more senators. And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas. All of these solutions are about as likely to pass: nil chance. And I'll fight tooth and nail to keep help keep this state together.

>I'm not sure how that couldn't be an argument to break up all the large states

It might be worth considering some kind of population density clause for when the number of constituents to representatives reaches a ridiculous value.

>You should instead get the congress to move over to a parliamentary system where all percentages of votes are counted instead of a plurality takes all.

This kind of a fix isn't pragmatic and will have a bigger disruption than breaking up one state. It's not like the geography is going to change because the lines are redrawn.

>And then you will not be breaking up my home state with these outsider ideas.

Have you considered whether other residents of the state share your view? Maybe the larger metropolitan areas are alright keeping around the sparser rural areas, but not the inverse?

Maybe locally—but nationally, it will reduce California’s voice to an infinitesimal one.

I have a hunch that this is something that Koch allies and the RNC would love to see, as it would mean that a fairly-reliable blue state (with a lot of EVs) would become two smaller blue states and four red states.

This makes even less sense than Prop 13, and will have a substantially worse effect.

(Disclaimer: I'm not American)

Doesn't the US system over-represent smaller states? Seems like Californians would have more representatives in DC with these changes.

On the second electoral-vote point, it sounds like the proposal would result in more proportional representation of Californians' political opinion which is surely a good thing.

There would be six times as many senators, but presumably the number of representatives wouldn't change that much.

The question might be "a good thing" for whom? American devotion to more proportional representation is and always has been somewhat qualified: the "gerry" in "gerrymander" remembers a signer of the Declaration of Independence...

"American devotion to proportional representation"

Well, I didn't believe such a thing existed. :)

Breaking up the state might provide more representation on the federal level. I disagree that it would be better. Also, I don't know if anyone has considered this but, nothing is stopping California from creating six separate localities with their own "governors" and laws under the California umbrella (sort of like mini states within the state).

Adopting a sane electoral system (i.e., not FPTP in single-member districts) will do that. Breaking the state up will not in any significant way do that.