What if they are the majority?
They have no power in our system to simply upend norms as they choose.
They can pack up and move themselves if they don’t like it.
The onus is not on everyone else to cater to them. It’s to abide laws as they are written within our constitutional system of elections and statutes overseeing them.
I’m not saying that’s ideal. I’m saying that’s how it works.
Down votes do nothing to make it any less true.
If these folks would like to change that, I’m sure blue urban areas and states would love to renegotiate their wealth being extracted to fund rural communities.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...
Ironically, Idaho is a bigger grifter on Federal welfare than Oregon.
So they want a more conservative way of life? Which appears to mean “more welfare for me”.
If they dig into the history a bit they’d learn rural life was subsidized to begin with, with the government paying business to move out of urban areas.
Using government to change the rules for all is not “little government”. Upending state borders out of spite is hardly a “conservative” solution.
Their entire platform is laughable given the reality.
Yes, they do. We all do. That is literally the point of having a democratically elected government.
If you believe in democratic institutions then people will sometimes vote for things you do not support. If Oregon and Idaho legislatures along with the US Congress also agree to this then it should happen.
Nobody is saying that we should not follow the rules and have the legislatures and congress vote on this. Your accusation that they are not abiding by the Constitution is ridiculous and just an outright lie. This vote is just an indication of what they would like to see. So instead of ranting about off topic things why don't you actually make a real argument about why this should not happen.
It is very clear you are not even trying to understand these people. You are not listening to them and are just being a jerk. It is people like you that cause these rural people to want to leave states filled with people who make libelous statements against them.
They can get a Uhaul and go.
Why bother putting real costs on the state to appease people with freedom of agency already?
It may look that way should “one side” or the other control an official political body, but at least for now, we still abide election laws insuring the “rule of law” bit.
They have free agency. Why would the state reshape itself to satisfy people who are prisoners to their own psychosis alone?
It seems like you are defaulting to a pretty negative opinion of these people.
I’d feel this way if it was left leaning folks who want the liberal regions to join California.
It’s not about “these people” at all for me except that these people happen to be the ones we’re talking about.
I’d appreciate it if an armchair shrink not diagnose me without knowing me.
It’s not the obligation of the state as a whole to kowtow to already free people who are feeling captured when it’s their own minds keeping them where they are.
This problem is already solved by the US Constitution which allows for them to move between state borders as they wish. It’s not on the whole of Oregon to satisfy them.
If why take for granted that the state has no obligation to them, the question still stands: why not try to give them what they want?
Do you view these people as disrespectful of the state the state institutions? Is it a matter of setting precedent or distorting historical legacy? Is it that these people are inconveniencing other citizens by asking for what they want?
If there’s nuance and context intended it should be communicated.
There is no “rule of majority”. Questioning what should be if they’re simply a majority is just not allowed given our system.