California is massive, both in terms of economy and land size. Many are surprised, upon visiting the state, to find just how incredulously far it is to drive from the northern border of the state to the southern tip. The state also has one of the largest economies in the world, producing much of the USA's food and being home to Hollywood. With all that under consideration, why would anyone want to fracture the state?

Billionaire Tim Draper (no relation to suave, dulcet-toned Don Draper) is the main proponent of the measure, which would see California split into six pieces: Jefferson, North California, Central California, Silicon Valley, West California, and South California.

Draper has gotten the requisite 800,000 signatures to get his proposal on the ballot in 2016, though the measure is unlikely to pass. California has a host of other more pressing problems, such as the massive drought that has been continually harming the Californian economy.

If Draper's measure should somehow be approved by the residents of the state of California, the creation of the six new states still would have to be approved by the federal government, which would likely not happen.

As shown by these handy infographics, Draper's plan to grant Silicon Valley its own statehood seems to be the real motive behind the proposal. Silicon Valley is current a net loser in terms of paying tax and receiving state benefits as, one might imagine, it is the hotbed of corporations paying taxes. Splitting up California into six states and giving Silicon Valley its own state would recycle all the money Silicon Valley pays back into the area, creating a buffer zone of very wealthy residents.

Silicon Valley would also get representatives in Congress that would be almost assuredly democrats. The amount of democrats in Silicon Valley outstrips by more than double the number of republicans in the area. Draper is doing what lawmakers do on a regular basis: gerrymandering.

Professor John Yoo of UC Berkeley has called the plan highly unlikely, and that Draper's reasoning for the plan doesn't hold up to scrutiny.