Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[Neutraligon]

And others in the state will likely say no, as is the power of the state. If the vote by the counties matters, then so too does the vote of the state since they are affected by this.

And here in lies the crux of the issue, as a single city shouldn't have the power to dictate how an entire state is run just because it's density.

Why should we allow tyranny of the minority? One of those counties have only around 2000 people.

[San Lumen]

And others in the state will likely say no, as is the power of the state. If the vote by the counties matters, then so too does the vote of the state since they are affected by this.

And here in lies the crux of the issue, as a single city shouldn't have the power to dictate how an entire state is run just because it's density.

Yeah how dare they get their fair share of representation and their vote count equally. Let’s go back to pre Reynolds v Sims thereby having unfair representation and elect statewide officials not by who gets the most votes but instead by who gets the most counties.

[Salus Maior]

And here in lies the crux of the issue, as a single city shouldn't have the power to dictate how an entire state is run just because it's density.

Why should we allow tyranny of the minority? One of those counties have only around 2000 people.

It's not tyranny of the minority for localities to decide the shape of their own government.

[Neutraligon]

Why should we allow tyranny of the minority? One of those counties have only around 2000 people.

It's not tyranny of the minority for localities to decide the shape of their own government.

It is when the localities are part of a larger state. Hell even worse, it is both tyranny of the minority and majority considering there are those who do not want the counties to leave who live within those counties.

[Salus Maior]

It's not tyranny of the minority for localities to decide the shape of their own government.

It is when the localities are part of a larger state. Hell even worse, it is both tyranny of the minority and majority considering there are those who do not want the counties to leave who live within those counties.

If you're going to consider the latter to be tyranny of the majority how can you justify the state overriding the wishes of the counties to not be tyranny of the majority in the same way?

[Neutraligon]

It is when the localities are part of a larger state. Hell even worse, it is both tyranny of the minority and majority considering there are those who do not want the counties to leave who live within those counties.

If you're going to consider the latter to be tyranny of the majority how can you justify the state overriding the wishes of the counties to not be tyranny of the majority in the same way?

When did I say it was not? I honestly believe that there are issues to be dealt with, like the aforementioned people who want to stay part of Oregon and the issues of state property, but if those and the other issues I have mentioned are dealt with then more power to those who wish to join another state.

[Salus Maior]

If you're going to consider the latter to be tyranny of the majority how can you justify the state overriding the wishes of the counties to not be tyranny of the majority in the same way?

When did I say it was not? I honestly believe that there are issues to be dealt with, like the aforementioned people who want to stay part of Oregon and the issues of state property, but if those and the other issues I have mentioned are dealt with then more power to those who wish to join another state.

I'm fine with that too. Like I said, respecting the referendum shouldn't mean that Oregon should just immediately hand over the counties to Idaho. There should be a negotiation process to ensure the results are resolved as smoothly as possible.

[San Lumen]

When did I say it was not? I honestly believe that there are issues to be dealt with, like the aforementioned people who want to stay part of Oregon and the issues of state property, but if those and the other issues I have mentioned are dealt with then more power to those who wish to join another state.

I'm fine with that too. Like I said, respecting the referendum shouldn't mean that Oregon should just immediately hand over the counties to Idaho. There should be a negotiation process to ensure the results are resolved as smoothly as possible.

Why should they have to negotiate a deal to hand over two thirds of their land and work out potentially complicated exclaves and enclaves?

Staten Island voted years ago to leave NYC. Albany never even gave it a hearing.

[Salus Maior]

I'm fine with that too. Like I said, respecting the referendum shouldn't mean that Oregon should just immediately hand over the counties to Idaho. There should be a negotiation process to ensure the results are resolved as smoothly as possible.

Why should they have to negotiate a deal to hand over two thirds of their land and work out potentially complicated exclaves and enclaves?

Staten Island voted years ago to leave NYC. Albany never even gave it a hearing.

To respect the principle of democracy.

Yeah, and that's authoritarian and undemocratic for them to ignore the will of the people.

Here's a fun question, how can you oppose the Electoral College for ignoring the will of the people in the election of the presidency, yet completely ok state governments not giving legal, democratic expressions of localities the time of day?

[San Lumen]

Why should they have to negotiate a deal to hand over two thirds of their land and work out potentially complicated exclaves and enclaves?

Staten Island voted years ago to leave NYC. Albany never even gave it a hearing.

To respect the principle of democracy.

Yeah, and that's authoritarian and undemocratic for them to ignore the will of the people.

Here's a fun question, how can you oppose the Electoral College for ignoring the will of the people in the election of the presidency, yet completely ok state governments not giving legal, democratic expressions of localities the time of day?

The will of the people was to ban same sex marriage in many states. Was it undemocratic for the courts to overturn their will?

[Punished UMN]

To respect the principle of democracy.

Yeah, and that's authoritarian and undemocratic for them to ignore the will of the people.

Here's a fun question, how can you oppose the Electoral College for ignoring the will of the people in the election of the presidency, yet completely ok state governments not giving legal, democratic expressions of localities the time of day?

The will of the people was to ban same sex marriage in many states. Was it undemocratic for the courts to overturn their will?

Yes actually. The purpose of courts is partly to protect against democracy.

[San Lumen]

The will of the people was to ban same sex marriage in many states. Was it undemocratic for the courts to overturn their will?

Yes actually. The purpose of courts is partly to protect against democracy.

It shouldn’t have mattered that is was unconstitutional? Only the people voted therefore it’s ok?

[Washington Resistance Army]

To respect the principle of democracy.

Yeah, and that's authoritarian and undemocratic for them to ignore the will of the people.

Here's a fun question, how can you oppose the Electoral College for ignoring the will of the people in the election of the presidency, yet completely ok state governments not giving legal, democratic expressions of localities the time of day?

The will of the people was to ban same sex marriage in many states. Was it undemocratic for the courts to overturn their will?

Yes, in every way imaginable.

[Kowani]

Yes actually. The purpose of courts is partly to protect against democracy.

It shouldn’t have mattered that is was unconstitutional? Only the people voted therefore it’s ok?

you'd think this cognitive dissonance would, at some point, kick in

[Punished UMN]

Yes actually. The purpose of courts is partly to protect against democracy.

It shouldn’t have mattered that is was unconstitutional? Only the people voted therefore it’s ok?

The purpose of the constitution is partly to protect against democracy. I didn't necessarily say it was a bad thing that this is its goal, or that that particular case was a bad thing; however, I take an issue with the way the constitution does this. Fundamentally, the sovereignty of states descends from the higher place down to the local level, but the centralized state power (i.e. the constitution, the legislature, etc.) is the fount of legitimacy, not the public who votes on things. Because of this, the idea of democracy is incoherent in a large state designed on such a constitutional basis; the electoral, democratic process is a feedback mechanism, not fundamentally a method of governance, the state has the legal authority to govern in the absence of popular election. It is this that I have an issue with, that the governed is not really what sets governance, the electorate are subjects, in the same way that the subjects of a monarchy are subjects.

[Salus Maior]

To respect the principle of democracy.

Yeah, and that's authoritarian and undemocratic for them to ignore the will of the people.

Here's a fun question, how can you oppose the Electoral College for ignoring the will of the people in the election of the presidency, yet completely ok state governments not giving legal, democratic expressions of localities the time of day?

The will of the people was to ban same sex marriage in many states. Was it undemocratic for the courts to overturn their will?

That's a deflection, and one you've overused.

Answer the question directly, why is it not ok for the Electoral College to ignore the will of the people, but it is ok for the states to do so?

[San Lumen]

The will of the people was to ban same sex marriage in many states. Was it undemocratic for the courts to overturn their will?

Yes, in every way imaginable.

Wow ok. Why bother even having courts?

Oregon should just hand over two thirds of their land no questions asked?

[Punished UMN]

Yes, in every way imaginable.

Wow ok. Why bother even having courts?

Oregon should just hand over two thirds of their land no questions asked?

To stop the popular will (i.e. democracy) from overruling the wishes of the state and regime is the foremost purpose of constitutional courts. The actual writers of the constitution were pretty clear about that.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, in every way imaginable.

Wow ok. Why bother even having courts?

Oregon should just hand over two thirds of their land no questions asked?

Not necessarily, as I've already said.

[San Lumen]

The will of the people was to ban same sex marriage in many states. Was it undemocratic for the courts to overturn their will?

That's a deflection, and one you've overused.

Answer the question directly, why is it not ok for the Electoral College to ignore the will of the people, but it is ok for the states to do so?

Whomever gets the most votes should be elected. End of story. The electoral college is a relic from another era that no longer serves its original purpose.

Wow ok. Why bother even having courts?

Oregon should just hand over two thirds of their land no questions asked?

To stop the popular will (i.e. democracy) from overruling the wishes of the state and regime is the foremost purpose of constitutional courts. The actual writers of the constitution were pretty clear about that.

What regime? The Oregon government was voted in via a free and fair election. They are under no obligation to indulge temper tantrum’s by people who can’t accept the outcome of elections.

What happens to marijuana farmers whose livelihoods would be ruined if the county joined Idaho?

[Washington Resistance Army]

What happens to marijuana farmers whose livelihoods would be ruined if the county joined Idaho?

Just move : )

[Salus Maior]

That's a deflection, and one you've overused.

Answer the question directly, why is it not ok for the Electoral College to ignore the will of the people, but it is ok for the states to do so?

Whomever gets the most votes should be elected. End of story. The electoral college is a relic from another era that no longer serves its original purpose.

That's only answering half the question. If seceding from a state or a city gets the most votes in the region in question, why does the state have the right to ignore it? Are states more important and sacred a construct than the presidency?

[San Lumen]

What happens to marijuana farmers whose livelihoods would be ruined if the county joined Idaho?

Just move : )

To where?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Just move : )

To where?

A state where they can grow marijuana of course.

[Salus Maior]

What happens to marijuana farmers whose livelihoods would be ruined if the county joined Idaho?

Just move : )

I'd disagree on this for the same reason I disagree with Lumen saying the same thing.

Maybe Idaho and Oregon could make a deal that, in the seceding counties, the weed farmers can still operate.