all of these things could be simplified and improved if the state were not such a behemoth
I'm skeptical of that. And since most states are in the same financial mess as CA, only on smaller scales, the argument that splitting the state up will somehow improve things seems weak.
The state is too big to manage doing what state governments were originally designed to manage. Because CA is such a large stage geographically and population-wise, and economically it has too much on its plate for one government to handle. It cannot even begin to sort its priorities, let alone get working on solving the top ones.
Splitting the state would at the very least revive the local / participatory / "community organizer" role of people with respect to their government. When people are involved in their governments, their governments improve. Simple as that; I don't see how it wouldn't improve many areas that CA hasn't been able to manage for decades now.
Because CA is such a large stage geographically and
population-wise
Canada doesn't seem to have any of these problems despite having about the same population and far vaster land. Western Australia gets along fine. Sweden? Norway? Finland? Chile?
The lower ratio of geographic area to population in California compared to something like Norway should make it easier to run California than others because the ration of taxpayers to infrastructure is better.
When people are involved in their governments,
their governments improve
This is popular wisdom, but I disagree. That dynamic attracts different people, but a common stereotype is a divisive, intrusive egootist with grand plans. That dynamic forces good, middle of the road citizens into political participation just to avoid being overrun by the determined nutters. High participation of involvement is definitely not a prerequisite for a nice, functioning state.
I don't see evidence indicating to believe that it could have worked if the state was larger or smaller.
I'm not convinced you've thought this through properly. Beyond what geographic size, population count, and economic size does a state need to be split? And how do you know how many states it should be split into? I mean, Rome essentially split in half and ended up with two unmanageable nations. How do you know California doesn't need to be split into 3 or 4 states? Or for that matter, more states have more overhead (you need two legislatures, two cabinets, two of every cabinet position). How do you know the real solution isn't to combine California with Oregon and Washington?
I'm skeptical of that. And since most states are in the same financial mess as CA, only on smaller scales, the argument that splitting the state up will somehow improve things seems weak.