Proposal to move 11 Oregon counties to Idaho
notthebee.com
notthebee.com
I see we're still getting mileage out of the whole "population/land" duality, huh? The combined population of all the counties that have voted to leave so far is 205,000 (the red counties, not the grey and green, which have not voted so far), which, assuming the entire population voted to leave, comes out to just 5% of the population, not 50%. For the record, that's not even 50% the population of Multnomah County (the county that has Portland in it).
To be clear -- I have no particular opinion either way about whether counties should be able to switch states like free electrons in metal. In fact, I might lean towards it. I just don't see the need to repeatedly use the lamest, laziest, and cheapest rhetorical techniques in these arguments. For a group that loves to talk about virtue signaling, they sure like to "arguing-in-bad-faith" signal.
Kind of like the gas stove issue...
This inevitably leads to the actual problem we have in this country: minoritarian rule (that should be obviously worse than majoritarian rule, but again, gets disguised as the "actual majority" or "equally populous opposition" getting a say). If you look at the composition of the supreme court and the senate, along with the contribution to the electoral college from states in presidential votes, it's pretty clear that what gets dictated is lopsided to smaller percentages of opinion, not larger. At the current rate, we are on track to have 66% of the senate representing just 30% of the population by 2040: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/b...
And then you run into problems where there is an issue that affects everybody, but one of these amplified groups has a strongly different opinion on it compared to the general population for some tangential reason, where there's no good argument to amplify any one voice on the topic (lots of examples in right vs left social politics, reflected in the rural vs urban groupings, that aren't intrinsically rural vs urban issues).
Edit: I think the second problem I'm describing is what people are calling "the tyranny of the minority."
Cities contain large quantities of people -- that's why they are called population centers. Large numbers of people generate lots of votes. As compared to locations with fewer amounts of people, cities will have an outsided influence on the outcome of elections.
How else do you want it to work? Normalize vote weight by acreage?
> How else do you want it to work? Normalize vote weight by acreage?
You're implicitly assuming something like a single central authority. I think the idea would be to have more local control, so your local conditions aren't controlled by some distant group that has no concern for them. If the decisions are being made far enough away, there's not that much practical difference between a king and a "population center."
Focusing too much on population gets you a tyranny of the majority.
If sentiment is so overwhelming that they can't even win the Senate, then I'm sorry, they lose.
The alternative is tyranny of the minority, which is what we are perilously close to having with egregious gerrymandering and the non-talking filibuster.
No? There's no special property qualification to vote in a senate election.
The Senate exists protect the interests of states as independent political units. That's why senators were originally appointed by state legislatures (i.e. the state governments).
Effectively we're being told to shut up and serve as economic engines to a bunch of rural backwoods yokels.
You're assuming uniform population density.
This is country folk rejecting the city slickers.
Politically, if the move were to actually take place it would help Democrats slightly, by making remaining Oregon more solidly Democrat (though those counties are almost empty).
The article says "(If your governance is so bad that half the state tries to leave, you're doing something wrong.)" -- but if half the population of the state really wants change, then it should be able to do so with normal democratic functions, right?
Or is this the case that these counties are lower population counties?
Malheur: 31k
Harney: 8k
Lake: 7k
Klamath: 68k
Grant: 7k
Baker: 16k
Wheeler: 2k
Jefferson: 24k
Sherman: 2k
Morrow: 12k
Union: 26k
Wallowa: 7k
https://www.oregon-demographics.com/counties_by_population
It'd likely end up like Brexit anyways - these areas don't appreciate just how much tax money is spent supporting them and their "independent" lifestyles. Changing their allegiance to a poorer, smaller state would result in a much lower quality of life for them.
> Revenues increased by $3,301,780. Expenditures increased by $1,727,698. This increase in revenue is due to the receipt of grant dollars from the Federal Delegation requests and State of Oregon fair disbursements. The Federal amount was $1,546,000 for communication upgrades through our Emergency Management Department. A new fund #105, the American Rescue Plan, brought in an additional $718,000 in grant revenue. We received $1M from the State of Oregon for fairgrounds infrastructure upgrades also included in the noted increase.
Just massively living off the government teat with no hint of irony.
https://www.co.harney.or.us/PDF_Files/Treasurer/Harney%20Cou...
Predator controls. Forest and fire management. Being able to defend oneself (guns). State and federal control of school curriculum. These are all important to most of these rural counties and are not performed well or to their liking. Nor are they empowered to go their own way because these regulations are created at the state level.
It is quite logical for them to ignore "benefits" and money being offered for the things that could be life changing for the better.
They would be rather governed by Idaho, where many more people who live similar lives write those policies that affect them the most.
If these rural areas want to break away and go their own way, they wont have the resources to combat crisis on their own, they can't even do that with their current tax revenue and I don't imagine they are willing to quadruple their property taxes to do so.
I expect they'll whine and yell at other states if they need help. However I'd hope the gov of the remaining area of oregon would flatly tell them no, at least I would.
Again. If the state policies prevent proper management of the resources, the money doesn't matter. It's misapplied.
The point that they don't have the resources. No, they don't have the resources to replicate what the state is doing. Parent's point is correct in that. But my point is that they don't WANT to replicate what the state is doing. It's misapplied. Thus, making the cost of the state programs irrelevant. You are assuming that everything on the budget is required to create a functional government. It's not.
Actually seems fitting that the county I chose was where those morons had their national park takeover that got some of them killed. “How dare you pay us millions of dollars to maintain this land!” “Freedom!!!”
Yup. In every state/province there is some corner that thinks it would be better off leaving for greener pastures. They love to scream about it when it isn't possible. Alberta wants to leave Canada atm. There was a move in California/Oregon/Washington to join Canada a couple decades ago. Prior to that, Quebec wanted out. And Texans love to talk about how it can leave the US if it feels like it. When push comes to shove it rarely ever happens. The impact on pensions, health care and police coverage of such moves always wins out over angry people angry because everyone lese keeps electing the wrong people.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/support-for-independent-alber...
Most of those 23% don't understand how geography works, and how difficult it would be to export oil (and farm products) through a hostile Canada.
I think there's something similar to Oregan happening though. A minority of Albertans that live in rural areas don't want government by "someone over there."
TL;DW These go nowhere
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEHOopbowqM [video][12 mins]
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=549hAQCHF7c [video][14 mins]
Same thing in California with the State of Jefferson movement. A vocal minority of people that want an outsized say in state politics.
> no they want a state where their say matters. You're proving their point
Boise is a spot of Blue in an overwhelmingly Red state. Many Boise voters feel as though their vote doesn't matter because the votes from elsewhere in the state will drown them out. The same logic that would imply someone's say in one of these Oregon counties doesn't matter, would also imply that the say of someone living in Boise doesn't matter.
It's an incorrect presumption. Your say doesn't only matter if you get your way. But it's the one you put forth.
It matters exactly as much as my say.
It just so happens that their opinions are unpopular.
County population
Wallowa 7,545 (on the ballot)
Wheeler 1,451
Morrow 12,303
Klamath 70,164
Harney 7,575
Sherman 1,907
Lake 8,276
Grant 7,272
Baker 16,847
Malheur 31,693
Union 26,212
Total: 191,245
Oregon's population is ~4,240,137, and will be reduced by ~4.5%
Idaho's population is ~1,939,033, and will be increased by ~9.9%
I am wondering, what happens to Umatilla, Gilliam or Wallowa if they vote No? they're surrounded by Washington state north, and seceding counties in the other directions.
As a state beneath the federal government, California is almost like its own country. With the same hold true for Texas, possibly.
The core problem is that the I-5 corridor really knows nothing about these counties, has no interest in understanding the issues in these counties, and frankly have engaged in utter hubris - we're educated, urban elites and what's best for the Willamette valley is best for the whole state . At the same time, those eastern ranchers et al are convinced those hippy dippy liberals from PDX are the anti-christ. So you've got two cultural groups completely speaking past each other. It's an even uglier divide than the same basic issues we have in Washington State.
While I can't excuse my rural brethren for their often simple and crass political views, I really do wish Salem / Portland politicians would throw them a bone. Land use management, water rights, etc ARE different on the east side of the state. I've seen Salem force these counties to do things that make no sense and are crippling to the economies of these states. So sure, these counties are poor and backwards - and often it seems like Salem wants it to stay that way. While I supported many policies from Kate Brown (and Jay Inslee), they both seem to like to fan the flames over here in the east rather than work to bridge the divide - and that's really frustrating. Will remain to be seem how Tina Kotek approaches this as gov, but my guess is it will be more of the same.
One could argue that the east side should throw the west side a bone by treating them as humans first in any negotiation -- rather than still trying to play "punching the hippy" politics which worked to a great extent in the 1970s.
The problem of politics of the right today is, that even if you do "throw them a bone", they're not going to stop with the vile rhetoric, so why even bother trying to negotiate with them?
It's a challenge - those few rural votes don't make a difference in an election. The few state and national elected officials that come from these areas are in a minority position. But, so long as they feel disrespected (rightly or wrongly) they will continue to pull political stunts (the walkout of Rs in Salem, the Bundy national park takeover, this push to join Idaho) and that could have violent repercussions.
I mean West Virginia decided to leave Best Virginia, and we have N and S Dakotas and Carolinas.
As for the Dakotas & Carolinas, those both entered the US as separate states AFAIK, rather than separating after they were in the US.
Disclosure: I have no clue about the underlying political/"cultural" differences of Idaho in contrast to the rest of the states...or Florida for this matter.
In practice, though, would the 49 remaining states invade Idaho & force them back in? The middle of the state is pretty wild & mountainous.
It’s worth noting that West Virginia chose to reject slavery and remain with the Union while the more wealthy slaveowning portion of the state seceded. A proud origin for the West Virginians!
Pretty badass.
When I was regularly doing business in PDX, one of the things that struck me was how few people had any idea that there was any part of the state east of Bend. You'd be having this conversation and it turned into some kind of parody or comedy sketch where people really seemed to believe that the earth just sort of ended at The Dalles. I mean that's really far east!!!!.
I recall talking to one guy who was a tech exec that had lived in PDX for decades and I tried to describe where I lived, IE: just get on I-84 and keep going east... you would have thought I was an alien, as he clearly had no idea there was anything on I-84 east of Troutdale.
And that's the gap here... two culturally, economically, completely different peoples. She flies with her own wings...