After the jump I guess.

I’m not talking about gun control: that has been litigated quite thoroughly in the vastness of the Kinjaverse. I’ve had conversations with very smart people on both sides about it and it has helped me understand it. but again, it aint the point of this.

I want to talk about a place I have a bit of an issue with...Baja California Sur. A place that in my mind only exists because we want to have twice as many Californias than the US, or perhaps we missed having Alta California so we couldn’t imagine only having one Baja California.

It’s not like Baja California is huge either, when a group of investigators wanted to crash a remote control Boeing 727 airliner to test some security features first hand, the Mexican goverment said “Well, yeah, just crash it in Baja California, make sure to miss Mexicali tho!”

But I digress...

Advertisement

You see, this gorgeous place with one of the highest HDI of Mexico, beautiful highways, amazing weather, amazing people, and Americans wanting cheap, unrestricted drinking is the second least populated state in Mexico. It wasn’t even a state until 1974.

But why is it a state? Why isn’t the Californian peninsula a single state? Both Baja California and Baja California Sur are similarly rich, both are similarly developed, and both are governed by Mexico’s conservative party: PAN. I can’t think of any cultural differences between them either...

So, rather than governing under a single government, Baja California Sur gets it’s own governor with an executive branch, a legislature, a judiciary and a court system for 712,000 people, when next door they have the same infrastructure and it would probably be cheaper to just fuse them together.

Nevermind other services like healthcare, or the DMV, or even the police forces who might have an easier time chasing criminals along their border if they didn’t actually have one.

Yet because of it’s statehood, Baja California Sur gets to send 3 senators to the Federal congress, that’s almost one for every 200,000 people, where Baja California only gets one for about every million citizen.

I know that in the lower chamber of congress it is actually based on population, but still, why is the objectively democratic one the lower one? I understand that small states should be represented too, but why are we representing to the feds as states anyway? Why is federal law crafted with states in mind rather than closely monitored and often redrawned districts? Not getting into gerrymandering of course, you could draw districts that represent similar amounts of people with similar cultures, or interests and then base the effects of federal laws within those districts? or maybe just make the senate as important as the chamber of deputies. Who knows... I don’t.... I don’t think presidencialist systems are good anyway, for as defective as it sometimes can be I think that the best systems are parliamentary, with a strong focus on autonomy... alike Spain’s.