There's about 39 million Californians, about 7 million Washingtonions and about 4 million Oregonians. As an Oregonian, the idea is kind of appealing but I'm not very comfortable with the idea of being politically dominated by California.
>I'm not very comfortable with the idea of being politically dominated by California
That's how many Americans feel when the presidential election rolls around.
Many Californians feel like their votes are useless in comparison to the number of electoral votes the tiny states get.
California is one of the 50 states and yet the candidate who wins it (obviously a Democrat) is already a fifth of the way to winning the presidency.
I think your phrasing makes this sound worse than it is. The candidate is a 5th of the way toward winning, but has a 10th of the electoral votes. And California has more than a 10th of the US population, so I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make.
...and yet candidates don't usually waste any time or effort campaigning in California or North Dakota because they aren't one of about a dozen persuadable swing states. In one sense the electoral votes per person ratio is a sensible way to measure political clout, but if a state is outright ignored and isn't taking part in the political conversation then that clout isn't translating into meaningful influence.
No thanks, we've got our own thing going here in the Northwest. An independent California would be a great neighbor, but if Washington and Oregon seceded, we would be doing our own Cascadian thing.