should Oregon split up or join Pacific Northwest in a union?

[Novus America]

Although no US state has a regional authority drawn from the existing representatives, it still can be done.
It has been proposed in the UK that only English MPs should be able to vote on laws that apply only to England.

But you could sure just use the existing county governments instead, give them more power.
You could form a new regional government, with its own regional legislature.
But simply having the representatives from the region make up the regional legislature is more efficient.

That way you do not have to vote twice. But you could have the regional legislature elected separately.

As to what powers, powers that are contentious, can be handled at the lower level, and where the urban and rural concerns greatly differ.

For example on gas drilling, if PA (who provides you gas) can let each county/city decide on if you allow gas drilling or not, while still having state regulation why cannot you do the same?

In the case of Oregon, create regional legislatures that have most the power currently held hey the state, the state only dealing with certain statewide issues, like state highways, the state national guard. You could have a very minimal state government, with more powerful local governments.

That keeps the state intact, while solving the regional conflicts.
Which is of course the idea the US was built on.

While the idea of regional governments is a good one I don’t see how it’s practical in the us. How do you decide these regions. Leanings can vary greatly by county or even within a county.

With your proposal for the state government I don’t see how that’s different from what we do now or are you thinking something along the lines of Maryland where county government is very powerful and there is little to no municipal government?

No system is perfect, but you could allow each county to vote on what region to join.
It is no different than drawing any other border.

Most states already have some sort of de facto regions, even if the lack legal power anyways: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _of_Oregon

The borders are already available in many cases.

Sure we already devolve some powers to counties or cities, but in states with large regional conflicts and a powerful state government, like Oregon, California and New York we could give the counties and cities even more autonomy, and give less power to the state government. Sure you could have something like Maryland or even more extreme Virginia, in which the county is very powerful and the primary form of government but that is not required. You could also do something like Massachusetts in which there are no county governments because the whole state is covered by cities, if the state is very developed and populated.
You have a lot of options on how to devolve power. What you call it, county or city is not important. What matters is that the state government gives rural an urban areas the ability to meet their separate needs, without one imposing too much on the other.

That is the best way to avoid these sorts of conflicts.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Despite being a one time Cascadia supporter no I do not currently support it.

Also California is not and should not be considered part of the prospective nation.

It's not like California has the world's 5th largest economy. As many downsides as California may have, it is an economic powerhouse.

Culture is a matter of preference
Good standard of living; the economy is irrelevant in other aspects
Earthquakes bad
Droughts bad
(uncontrolled) Forrest Fires bad
Climate is a matter of preference, but there is a vast temperature range depending where in the state; good
Big tech center and agriculture centers and educational centers make self-sufficiency less nonviable; good

[Novus America]

It's not like California has the world's 5th largest economy. As many downsides as California may have, it is an economic powerhouse.

Culture is a matter of preference
Good standard of living; the economy is irrelevant in other aspects
Earthquakes bad
Droughts bad
(uncontrolled) Forrest Fires bad
Climate is a matter of preference, but there is a vast temperature range depending where in the state; good
Big tech center and agriculture centers and educational centers make self-sufficiency less nonviable; good

But simply having a big economy is not sufficient reason. Texas is a big economy, should New Mexico join Texas?

With the exception of North California, California is very different and not considered part of the Cascadia/Oregon Country region.

Although Alaska joining it is absolutely a no go. Alaska would absolutely not want to be be part.

[Salus Maior]

It seems a little less ridiculous than the State of Jefferson, but even still it's kinda vague on what sort of state Cascadia would be.

I don't see why the state of Jefferson is ridiculous.

There is plenty of precedent for states breaking off from other states. That's how most states have been made anyway.

[Kiu Ghesik]

It seems a little less ridiculous than the State of Jefferson, but even still it's kinda vague on what sort of state Cascadia would be.

I don't see why the state of Jefferson is ridiculous.

There is plenty of precedent for states breaking off from other states. That's how most states have been made anyway.

...no? Most states were made by chunks of territories or whole territories gaining enough population to be eligible for statehood, not by states breaking apart. I think only five or six states were ever admitted as breakaways from other states.

[Senkaku]

That's how most states have been made anyway.

...I can really only think of West Virginia, Maine, and Texas (which wasn't splitting from an American state)? Weren't pretty well all of the others either original colonies or territories that were subsequently organized?

In any case, if we're redrawing Cascadia's borders, we must unfortunately consider the partisan impact on the Senate. Right now Oregon and Washington send four Democratic senators to DC- if you reorganized the area into a state to the west of the Cascades in both states and a state to the east (which arguably is a much better cultural, climatic, political, and economic fit), you'll end up with two of those seats flipping to the GOP. There's also the economic problem: Eastern Washington has a pretty strong agricultural sector, but while they do have farming and ranching and whatnot, a lot of Eastern Oregon is pretty inhospitable country, and in both cases a lot of the state's revenues come from the rich tech cities in the western regions. If either or both were partitioned or recombined, the east would suddenly have to plug some pretty big budget holes.

In Washington we'd also have a weird situation of a lot of the electrical plants, both wind and hydro, supplying the west now being located in another state; I don't think this is as much an issue in Oregon but there are a lot of hydro plants east of Portland that I'm not sure who would take over.

If national-level reforms were undertaken to, say, try and make the legislature more representative of the electorate, I'd be more on board, because conservatives in the east do deserve representation- but unfortunately right now, their lack of representation is sorta partially cancelling out the lack of representation for leftists in a lot of other states, which is a shitty situation for everyone. But it would still be a sticky economic problem.

[La Xinga]

That's how most states have been made anyway.

...I can really only think of West Virginia, Maine, and Texas (which wasn't splitting from an American state)? Weren't pretty well all of the others either original colonies or territories that were subsequently organized?

In any case, if we're redrawing Cascadia's borders, we must unfortunately consider the partisan impact on the Senate. Right now Oregon and Washington send four Democratic senators to DC- if you reorganized the area into a state to the west of the Cascades in both states and a state to the east (which arguably is a much better cultural, climatic, political, and economic fit), you'll end up with two of those seats flipping to the GOP. There's also the economic problem: Eastern Washington has a pretty strong agricultural sector, but while they do have farming and ranching and whatnot, a lot of Eastern Oregon is pretty inhospitable country, and in both cases a lot of the state's revenues come from the rich tech cities in the western regions. If either or both were partitioned or recombined, the east would suddenly have to plug some pretty big budget holes.

In Washington we'd also have a weird situation of a lot of the electrical plants, both wind and hydro, supplying the west now being located in another state; I don't think this is as much an issue in Oregon but there are a lot of hydro plants east of Portland that I'm not sure who would take over.

If national-level reforms were undertaken to, say, try and make the legislature more representative of the electorate, I'd be more on board, because conservatives in the east do deserve representation- but unfortunately right now, their lack of representation is sorta partially cancelling out the lack of representation for leftists in a lot of other states, which is a shitty situation for everyone. But it would still be a sticky economic problem.

Although if we have Alaska and Idaho part of it that's -4 Republican Senators.

The rest I agree with.

[Novus America]

That's how most states have been made anyway.

...I can really only think of West Virginia, Maine, and Texas (which wasn't splitting from an American state)? Weren't pretty well all of the others either original colonies or territories that were subsequently organized?

In any case, if we're redrawing Cascadia's borders, we must unfortunately consider the partisan impact on the Senate. Right now Oregon and Washington send four Democratic senators to DC- if you reorganized the area into a state to the west of the Cascades in both states and a state to the east (which arguably is a much better cultural, climatic, political, and economic fit), you'll end up with two of those seats flipping to the GOP. There's also the economic problem: Eastern Washington has a pretty strong agricultural sector, but while they do have farming and ranching and whatnot, a lot of Eastern Oregon is pretty inhospitable country, and in both cases a lot of the state's revenues come from the rich tech cities in the western regions. If either or both were partitioned or recombined, the east would suddenly have to plug some pretty big budget holes.

In Washington we'd also have a weird situation of a lot of the electrical plants, both wind and hydro, supplying the west now being located in another state; I don't think this is as much an issue in Oregon but there are a lot of hydro plants east of Portland that I'm not sure who would take over.

If national-level reforms were undertaken to, say, try and make the legislature more representative of the electorate, I'd be more on board, because conservatives in the east do deserve representation- but unfortunately right now, their lack of representation is sorta partially cancelling out the lack of representation for leftists in a lot of other states, which is a shitty situation for everyone. But it would still be a sticky economic problem.

I think the Feds own thread hydroelectric plants though. So that is not too much an issue.

[Senkaku]

...I can really only think of West Virginia, Maine, and Texas (which wasn't splitting from an American state)? Weren't pretty well all of the others either original colonies or territories that were subsequently organized?

In any case, if we're redrawing Cascadia's borders, we must unfortunately consider the partisan impact on the Senate. Right now Oregon and Washington send four Democratic senators to DC- if you reorganized the area into a state to the west of the Cascades in both states and a state to the east (which arguably is a much better cultural, climatic, political, and economic fit), you'll end up with two of those seats flipping to the GOP. There's also the economic problem: Eastern Washington has a pretty strong agricultural sector, but while they do have farming and ranching and whatnot, a lot of Eastern Oregon is pretty inhospitable country, and in both cases a lot of the state's revenues come from the rich tech cities in the western regions. If either or both were partitioned or recombined, the east would suddenly have to plug some pretty big budget holes.

In Washington we'd also have a weird situation of a lot of the electrical plants, both wind and hydro, supplying the west now being located in another state; I don't think this is as much an issue in Oregon but there are a lot of hydro plants east of Portland that I'm not sure who would take over.

If national-level reforms were undertaken to, say, try and make the legislature more representative of the electorate, I'd be more on board, because conservatives in the east do deserve representation- but unfortunately right now, their lack of representation is sorta partially cancelling out the lack of representation for leftists in a lot of other states, which is a shitty situation for everyone. But it would still be a sticky economic problem.

Although if we have Alaska and Idaho part of it that's -4 Republican Senators.

The rest I agree with.

why in God's name would we consolidate Alaska with the rest of the PNW lmao it's like a thousand miles away and huge and has a very distinct culture and society

[Novus America]

...I can really only think of West Virginia, Maine, and Texas (which wasn't splitting from an American state)? Weren't pretty well all of the others either original colonies or territories that were subsequently organized?

In any case, if we're redrawing Cascadia's borders, we must unfortunately consider the partisan impact on the Senate. Right now Oregon and Washington send four Democratic senators to DC- if you reorganized the area into a state to the west of the Cascades in both states and a state to the east (which arguably is a much better cultural, climatic, political, and economic fit), you'll end up with two of those seats flipping to the GOP. There's also the economic problem: Eastern Washington has a pretty strong agricultural sector, but while they do have farming and ranching and whatnot, a lot of Eastern Oregon is pretty inhospitable country, and in both cases a lot of the state's revenues come from the rich tech cities in the western regions. If either or both were partitioned or recombined, the east would suddenly have to plug some pretty big budget holes.

In Washington we'd also have a weird situation of a lot of the electrical plants, both wind and hydro, supplying the west now being located in another state; I don't think this is as much an issue in Oregon but there are a lot of hydro plants east of Portland that I'm not sure who would take over.

If national-level reforms were undertaken to, say, try and make the legislature more representative of the electorate, I'd be more on board, because conservatives in the east do deserve representation- but unfortunately right now, their lack of representation is sorta partially cancelling out the lack of representation for leftists in a lot of other states, which is a shitty situation for everyone. But it would still be a sticky economic problem.

Although if we have Alaska and Idaho part of it that's -4 Republican Senators.

The rest I agree with.

Alaska would not join. Alaska is a horrible fit.
Also if the Eastern parts are forming their own state, you are not getting parts of Idaho either.

[La Xinga]

Although if we have Alaska and Idaho part of it that's -4 Republican Senators.

The rest I agree with.

why in God's name would we consolidate Alaska with the rest of the PNW lmao it's like a thousand miles away and huge and has a very distinct culture and society

I mean, it touches BC. And if we're adding Yukon, we NEED to add Alaska.

[La Xinga]

Although if we have Alaska and Idaho part of it that's -4 Republican Senators.

The rest I agree with.

Alaska would not join. Alaska is a horrible fit.
Also if the Eastern parts are forming their own state, you are not getting parts of Idaho either.

Why are the Eastern parts making their own state lol?

[Novus America]

Alaska would not join. Alaska is a horrible fit.
Also if the Eastern parts are forming their own state, you are not getting parts of Idaho either.

Why are the Eastern parts making their own state lol?

Because they are very different culturally and economically. And many there want to be their own thing.

But even if you keep them, Alaska and Idaho are not going to be interested. Especially not Alaska.
Alaska is not going to want to be part of what it’s sure to be a Democrat dominated anti-gun state.

And you cannot take over part of a state without that state agreeing.

Why would a right libertarian petrostate want to be part of an anti gun, anti oil state?

[La Xinga]

Why are the Eastern parts making their own state lol?

Because they are very different culturally and economically. And many there want to be their own thing.

But even if you keep them, Alaska and Idaho are not going to be interested. Especially not Alaska.
Alaska is not going to want to be part of what it’s sure to be a Democrat dominated anti-gun state.

And you cannot take over part of a state without that state agreeing.

Then we can make a lose union. Foreign affairs and some other stuff to be for the union as a whole and the rest for the states themselves.

[Sylh Alanor]

Because they are very different culturally and economically. And many there want to be their own thing.

But even if you keep them, Alaska and Idaho are not going to be interested. Especially not Alaska.
Alaska is not going to want to be part of what it’s sure to be a Democrat dominated anti-gun state.

And you cannot take over part of a state without that state agreeing.

Then we can make a lose union. Foreign affairs and some other stuff to be for the union as a whole and the rest for the states themselves.

Your next problem: BC isn't going to want to be part of this idea, and Yukon certainly won't.

[San Lumen]

While the idea of regional governments is a good one I don’t see how it’s practical in the us. How do you decide these regions. Leanings can vary greatly by county or even within a county.

With your proposal for the state government I don’t see how that’s different from what we do now or are you thinking something along the lines of Maryland where county government is very powerful and there is little to no municipal government?

No system is perfect, but you could allow each county to vote on what region to join.
It is no different than drawing any other border.

Most states already have some sort of de facto regions, even if the lack legal power anyways: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _of_Oregon

The borders are already available in many cases.

Sure we already devolve some powers to counties or cities, but in states with large regional conflicts and a powerful state government, like Oregon, California and New York we could give the counties and cities even more autonomy, and give less power to the state government. Sure you could have something like Maryland or even more extreme Virginia, in which the county is very powerful and the primary form of government but that is not required. You could also do something like Massachusetts in which there are no county governments because the whole state is covered by cities, if the state is very developed and populated.
You have a lot of options on how to devolve power. What you call it, county or city is not important. What matters is that the state government gives rural an urban areas the ability to meet their separate needs, without one imposing too much on the other.

That is the best way to avoid these sorts of conflicts.

A Maryland or Virginia type solution seems to be the most practical and easiest to implement.

[La Xinga]

Then we can make a lose union. Foreign affairs and some other stuff to be for the union as a whole and the rest for the states themselves.

Your next problem: BC isn't going to want to be part of this idea, and Yukon certainly won't.

Indeed, that is a problem. Although it's not my problem, since don't advocate for Cascadia.

[Sylh Alanor]

Your next problem: BC isn't going to want to be part of this idea, and Yukon certainly won't.

Indeed, that is a problem. Although it's not my problem, since don't advocate for Cascadia.

Sorry, I definitely misinterpreted then because you were giving the possibilities to make it work on this page, lol. But yeah, if I hear literally zero support for Cascadia in Victoria, which would 100% be the most likely supportive place in BC, then it's a non-starter. (For the record, I'm also not an advocate for the concept)

[La Xinga]

Indeed, that is a problem. Although it's not my problem, since don't advocate for Cascadia.

Sorry, I definitely misinterpreted then because you were giving the possibilities to make it work on this page, lol. But yeah, if I hear literally zero support for Cascadia in Victoria, which would 100% be the most likely supportive place in BC, then it's a non-starter. (For the record, I'm also not an advocate for the concept)

I was attacking the reason about politics being a factor why it should be no.

[Novus America]

Because they are very different culturally and economically. And many there want to be their own thing.

But even if you keep them, Alaska and Idaho are not going to be interested. Especially not Alaska.
Alaska is not going to want to be part of what it’s sure to be a Democrat dominated anti-gun state.

And you cannot take over part of a state without that state agreeing.

Then we can make a lose union. Foreign affairs and some other stuff to be for the union as a whole and the rest for the states themselves.

US states do not have much in the way of foreign affairs. And still even as a loose one, Alaska is not going to be interested. That is the problem. Oregon and Washington are pretty close economically, culturally and politically, BC is fairly close but still not likely to be interested. And Alaskan would give it a hard pass.

It is not viable, beyond maybe Washington and Oregon.

[La Xinga]

Then we can make a lose union. Foreign affairs and some other stuff to be for the union as a whole and the rest for the states themselves.

US states do not have much in the way of foreign affairs. And still even as a loose one, Alaska is not going to be interested. That is the problem. Oregon and Washington are pretty close economically, culturally and politically, BC is fairly close but still not likely to be interested. And Alaskan would give it a hard pass.

It is not viable, beyond maybe Washington and Oregon.

1. US States definitely do not do close to the amount of foreign affairs than the fed gov does.
2. That's not a political issue.

[Salus Maior]

I don't see why the state of Jefferson is ridiculous.

There is plenty of precedent for states breaking off from other states. That's how most states have been made anyway.

...no? Most states were made by chunks of territories or whole territories gaining enough population to be eligible for statehood, not by states breaking apart. I think only five or six states were ever admitted as breakaways from other states.

Other states claimed the territories before they were made into states. But either way, even if my post is exaggerating the point still stands that states which split from other states is not a ridiculous notion, but one with a decent amount of precedent.

[Rio Cana]

You do know that only 46.97% of Oregon can be split since the federal government owns the rest.

The federal government owns 53.03 percent of Oregon's total land, 32,665,430 acres out of 61,598,720 total acres.

Edit - Found a map - https://i.insider.com/568c2cf6e6183e1c0 ... &auto=webp

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Culture is a matter of preference
Good standard of living; the economy is irrelevant in other aspects
Earthquakes bad
Droughts bad
(uncontrolled) Forrest Fires bad
Climate is a matter of preference, but there is a vast temperature range depending where in the state; good
Big tech center and agriculture centers and educational centers make self-sufficiency less nonviable; good

But simply having a big economy is not sufficient reason. Texas is a big economy, should New Mexico join Texas?

With the exception of North California, California is very different and not considered part of the Cascadia/Oregon Country region.

Although Alaska joining it is absolutely a no go. Alaska would absolutely not want to be be part.

I agree