Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[Galloism]

Well we learned last year that they were deliberately suppressing their right to vote on new legislation as spelled out in the Oregon Constitution.

Wait. Explain? They wanted to recall?

No.

What really got this standoff going was an emergency cap and trade bill (cap and trade is a form of carbon emissions taxation, basically). It was an emergency because the Oregon Constitution requires most new legislation passed by the legislature to then be placed on the ballot to be voted on by the people. The exception - emergencies. The legislature specifically crafted the bill as an emergency with the goal of denying the people of Oregon their traditional right to vote on the new legislation. This led to the republicans fleeing the legislature to deny the democrats quorum and passing a bill crafted in such a fashion to deny Oregonians their traditional rights under the Constitution of Oregon.

I'm going off memory here, but that was basically the thrust of it.

[Shofercia]

Seems to be working quite well for Switzerland.




What part of Democrats also violated the Constitution to declare an emergency measure to ram through policies that should've been subject to a referendum, and then used police force to drag Republicans to the floor to vote, do you not under Lumen? Are you for excessive police force when the Democrats do it?





That violates the secret ballot clause and fails to answer the question of why state borders are sacrosanct.

Republicans don't give a darn about about the planet and if they want to act like children and grandstand instead of worrying about if their children know about birds and fish other than from a book or natural beauty from a Bob Ross painting the heck with them.

No one said they were sacrosanct but its not going to be changed over we don't like the fact that we lose elections and don't get more representation than our population allows.

If you're perpetually losing elections, why wouldn't you want to switch states?

[San Lumen]

Republicans don't give a darn about about the planet and if they want to act like children and grandstand instead of worrying about if their children know about birds and fish other than from a book or natural beauty from a Bob Ross painting the heck with them.

No one said they were sacrosanct but its not going to be changed over we don't like the fact that we lose elections and don't get more representation than our population allows.

If you're perpetually losing elections, why wouldn't you want to switch states?

Move instead of changing borders.

[Chan Island]

If you're perpetually losing elections, why wouldn't you want to switch states?

Move instead of changing borders.

The majority of people in these counties are voting for the change in borders though. Surely majority rules (in this specific case)? Also, it seems excessively unreasonable to expect that the majority of people in a region are just going to up sticks and leave if they don't like the way things are run... in their own home area.

[San Lumen]

Move instead of changing borders.

The majority of people in these counties are voting for the change in borders though. Surely majority rules (in this specific case)? Also, it seems excessively unreasonable to expect that the majority of people in a region are just going to up sticks and leave if they don't like the way things are run... in their own home area.

Its nothing more than an advisory referendum held during an election with usually the lowest turnout that Salem is never going to even bring up for debate. The only other thing on the ballot was likely school board.

[Albrenia]

Move instead of changing borders.

The majority of people in these counties are voting for the change in borders though. Surely majority rules (in this specific case)? Also, it seems excessively unreasonable to expect that the majority of people in a region are just going to up sticks and leave if they don't like the way things are run... in their own home area.

To be fair, even in a Democracy isn't always about the majority in just that particular area ruling. A state might vote mainly Democrat or GOP, but if the election goes the other way they don't get to 'leave' and be part of another country/state/whatever that had a result they would have preferred.

From a purely 'the people's will' perspective it would make sense for them to be allowed to change states, but the particular brand of democracy that the US uses doesn't appear to allow that without the consent of both states involved, which does not look likely to be given.

The horrifyingly ugly map that following the people's will would result in notwithstanding.

[Tobleste]

And yet the law was passed. Challenge it in court. You may not like how it was done but I find it hard to believe that the GOP hasn't challenged it in court and I'm presuming they lost.

Actually it didn't pass, the Democrats backed down and sent it back to committee.

So not tyranny then? I don't see the problem. A party tried to do something it (allegedly) wasn't allowed to do and then backed down. That happens all the time.

[San Lumen]

The majority of people in these counties are voting for the change in borders though. Surely majority rules (in this specific case)? Also, it seems excessively unreasonable to expect that the majority of people in a region are just going to up sticks and leave if they don't like the way things are run... in their own home area.

To be fair, even in a Democracy isn't always about the majority in just that particular area ruling. A state might vote mainly Democrat or GOP, but if the election goes the other way they don't get to 'leave' and be part of another country/state/whatever that had a result they would have preferred.

From a purely 'the people's will' perspective it would make sense for them to be allowed to change states, but the particular brand of democracy that the US uses doesn't appear to allow that without the consent of both states involved, which does not look likely to be given.

The horrifyingly ugly map that following the people's will would result in notwithstanding.

For state boundaries to change it requires the consent of both states, Congress, and the President's signature.

[Bear Stearns]

Based. US state borders are arbitary anyways (especially out west). If we need to adjust them as circumstances on the ground change, and the people will for it, then let's go.

[San Lumen]

Based. US state borders are arbitary anyways (especially out west). If we need to adjust them as circumstances on the ground change, and the people will for it, then let's go.

Its only happened a few times in US history.

[Bear Stearns]

Based. US state borders are arbitary anyways (especially out west). If we need to adjust them as circumstances on the ground change, and the people will for it, then let's go.

Its only happened a few times in US history.

so what

[The Two Jerseys]

The majority of people in these counties are voting for the change in borders though. Surely majority rules (in this specific case)? Also, it seems excessively unreasonable to expect that the majority of people in a region are just going to up sticks and leave if they don't like the way things are run... in their own home area.

Its nothing more than an advisory referendum held during an election with usually the lowest turnout that Salem is never going to even bring up for debate. The only other thing on the ballot was likely school board.

It's irrelevant what offices were on the ballot, the electorate received a sample ballot and were made aware that the referendum was on the ballot, if people who were opposed to it couldn't be bothered to head to the pools and vote, too bad for them.

Maybe they should move to Oregon if they don't like the referendum result.

[The Two Jerseys]

Actually it didn't pass, the Democrats backed down and sent it back to committee.

So not tyranny then? I don't see the problem. A party tried to do something it (allegedly) wasn't allowed to do and then backed down. That happens all the time.

Failure to follow through doesn't make it any less tyrannical.

The people of these counties have decided that a government that attempts to force laws upon them through dirty tricks no longer represents their interests, therefore they do not wish to be governed by that government.

[San Lumen]

So not tyranny then? I don't see the problem. A party tried to do something it (allegedly) wasn't allowed to do and then backed down. That happens all the time.

Failure to follow through doesn't make it any less tyrannical.

The people of these counties have decided that a government that attempts to force laws upon them through dirty tricks no longer represents their interests, therefore they do not wish to be governed by that government.

No laws are being forced on them by tyrannical regime. The government isn't going to indulge this stunt and it will never even get a committee hearing so they can keep whining.

[Bear Stearns]

Failure to follow through doesn't make it any less tyrannical.

The people of these counties have decided that a government that attempts to force laws upon them through dirty tricks no longer represents their interests, therefore they do not wish to be governed by that government.

No laws are being forced on them by tyrannical regime. The government isn't going to indulge this stunt and it will never even get a committee hearing so they can keep whining.

just admit you only hate these people because they disagree with you. If they aren't even going to get a committee (assuming that's true), why would you care? Let them be.

[Senkaku]

If they aren't even going to get a committee (assuming that's true), why would you care? Let them be.

I mean that’s pretty easy, it’s because this shit is a predecessor to rebellion and separatist terrorism, and eventually to state absence and de facto paramilitary control of large areas of the nation (as evidenced by the demonstration/siege-cum-proto-rebellion that took place there before this)

[Galloism]

If they aren't even going to get a committee (assuming that's true), why would you care? Let them be.

I mean that’s pretty easy, it’s because this shit is a predecessor to rebellion and separatist terrorism, and eventually to state absence and de facto paramilitary control of large areas of the nation (as evidenced by the demonstration/siege-cum-proto-rebellion that took place there before this)

Didn't happen in California when they were making noises about secession from the US.

[Bear Stearns]

If they aren't even going to get a committee (assuming that's true), why would you care? Let them be.

I mean that’s pretty easy, it’s because this shit is a predecessor to rebellion and separatist terrorism,

lol what

and eventually to state absence and de facto paramilitary control of large areas of the nation (as evidenced by the demonstration/siege-cum-proto-rebellion that took place there before this)

All they are literally asking for is to join Idaho

[San Lumen]

I mean that’s pretty easy, it’s because this shit is a predecessor to rebellion and separatist terrorism,

lol what

and eventually to state absence and de facto paramilitary control of large areas of the nation (as evidenced by the demonstration/siege-cum-proto-rebellion that took place there before this)

All they are literally asking for is to join Idaho

and Salem is never going to give it to them.

[Proctopeo]

...so, the majority of people in these counties do want it, because they think it sounds like a good idea. You're creating a dichotomy where one doesn't even exist.

Not really. If they are commited to work on the effort and spend money for the effort? Sure. I suspect the majority haven’t done either.

People can want something without expending effort or money to make it happen. I really don't understand what you're going for here.

Irrelevant.

If they voted for Biden, you would be correct. However, I suspect the voted for the ex-president.

No, it's legitimately irrelevant, except maybe to your capacity to feel empathy for people. That would be pretty fucked up though, so I'm assuming that you mean something else despite the context.

If you're perpetually losing elections, why wouldn't you want to switch states?

Move instead of changing borders.

Impractical. Get new material.

No laws are being forced on them by tyrannical regime. The government isn't going to indulge this stunt and it will never even get a committee hearing so they can keep whining.

just admit you only hate these people because they disagree with you. If they aren't even going to get a committee (assuming that's true), why would you care? Let them be.

"I hate them because they disagree with me" is the core argument of most people contrary to this idea here, tbh. That's hyperpartisanship for you, baby!

[Halsuntria]

Based. Good on them!

[Bear Stearns]

lol what



All they are literally asking for is to join Idaho

and Salem is never going to give it to them.

Then why do you care?

[Albrenia]

and Salem is never going to give it to them.

Then why do you care?

I think the main gist of this conversation of 'should it be allowed' rather than 'will it be allowed'. Since the chances of a state saying 'sure, I want less tax payers' is likely small.

[Bear Stearns]

Then why do you care?

I think the main gist of this conversation of 'should it be allowed' rather than 'will it be allowed'. Since the chances of a state saying 'sure, I want less tax payers' is likely small.

All the reasons in this thread for why this shouldn't be allowed have been:

>it'll never happen because [irrelevant legalism]
>the people pushing for it disagree with me so fuck them
>This will apparently lead to an armed rebellion
>No you just can't change a state's border

[Dresderstan]

Doesn't go far enough, what about rural Washington State and northern Cali. Make Greater Idaho Greater.