Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[San Lumen]

While I sympathize, I think this would only result in retaliatory measures where liberal areas in conservative states do the same thing and as a result nothing is solved in the end. A better solution would be to introduce the electoral college to statewide elections, so that rural counties gain the same level of increased influence that rural states now have in federal elections.

That would not be even remotely be fair or Democratic. What would you do it by? Counties or state legislative districts?

Mississippi had an electoral college for statewide office where one had to win a majority of the popular vote and a majority of state house districts.

It was repealed last year via a referendum/constitutional amendment due to how unfair it was and it’s discriminatory nature. It was a relic of Jim Crow.

[Atheris]

While I sympathize, I think this would only result in retaliatory measures where liberal areas in conservative states do the same thing and as a result nothing is solved in the end. A better solution would be to introduce the electoral college to statewide elections, so that rural counties gain the same level of increased influence that rural states now have in federal elections.

Fuck the Electoral College.

[The Archregimancy]

I don't see why this has to be so complicated. Czechoslovakia split apart without bloodshed.

It did, but that was a highly unusual situation - and was done despite a majority of Czechs and Slovaks favouring the continuation of a unified state. As the Wiki article (citing a New York Times article) notes, in September 1992 poll, only 37% of Slovaks and 36% of Czechs favoured ending Czechoslovakia. While there was some nationalist sentiment in Slovakia, the split happened because newly elected Czech leader Václav Klaus insisted on either a tighter federation or two fully independent states; at the time Slovak leader Vladimír Mečiar was merely angling for a looser confederation that devolved more autonomy to Bratislava. Klaus and Mečiar didn't get on, and didn't really attempt to find a good-faith compromise. The Slovak parliament then issued a 'Declaration of Independence of the Slovak Nation' - not so much a full declaration of independence as a declaration that they had the right to self-determination and independence if they wanted it; but nuance was lost in the personal acrimony between Klaus and Mečiar, and the damage was done. Klaus and Mečiar then sat down in Bratislava and simply negotiated a dissolution of the Czechoslavak state - over the objections of federal president Václav Havel, who resigned rather than oversee the dissolution, and without bothering to have either side put the agreement to a referendum that they might well have lost given the public opposition. It was merely passed by the federal parliament, where Mečiar and Klaus were able to push it through with the support of their respective parties.

Summed up, I'm not sure that a politician-led split that took place despite substantial public opposition to the dissolution is a particularly good example of the principle of self-determination since in this case if the principle of self-determination had been followed Czechoslovakia might well have stayed together.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I don't see why this has to be so complicated. Czechoslovakia split apart without bloodshed.

It did, but that was a highly unusual situation - and was done despite a majority of Czechs and Slovaks favouring the continuation of a unified stated. As the Wiki article (citing a New York Times article) notes, in September 1992 poll, only 37% of Slovaks and 36% of Czechs favoured ending Czechoslovakia. While there was some nationalist sentiment in Slovakia, the split happened because newly elected Czech leader Václav Klaus insisted on either a tighter federation or two fully independent states; at the time Slovak leader Vladimír Mečiar was merely angling for a looser confederation that devolved more autonomy to Bratislava. Klaus and Mečiar didn't get on, and didn't really attempt to find a good-faith compromise. The Slovak parliament then issued a 'Declaration of Independence of the Slovak Nation' - not so much a full declaration of independence as a declaration that they had the right to self-determination and independence if they wanted it; but nuance was lost in the personal acrimony between Klaus and Mečiar, and the damage was done. Klaus and Mečiar then sat down in Bratislava and simply negotiated a dissolution of the Czechoslavak state - over the objections of federal president Václav Havel, who resigned rather than oversee the dissolution, and without bothering to have either side put the agreement to a referendum that they might well have lost given public opposition to the dissolution. It was merely passed by the federal parliament, where Mečiar and Klaus were able to push it through with the support of their respective parties.
Summed up, I'm not sure that a politician-led split that took place despite substantial public opposition to the dissolution is a particularly good example of the principle of self-determination since in this case if the principle of self-determination had been followed Czechoslovakia might well have stayed together.

Interesting Post Arch Thank You. I read a lot about History, Biographies, and current Political world events.

[Neutraligon]

Just did a count of the 5 counties, and the population of all 5 is around 60-70 thousand.

[San Lumen]

While I sympathize, I think this would only result in retaliatory measures where liberal areas in conservative states do the same thing and as a result nothing is solved in the end. A better solution would be to introduce the electoral college to statewide elections, so that rural counties gain the same level of increased influence that rural states now have in federal elections.

Fuck the Electoral College.

It works awfully at the federal level we don;'t need a state level one.

[Tobleste]

If they were seriously bothered by politicians trying to pass legislation with tricks like that, they wouldn't want to go to a red state. Those counties voted for Trump. They're fine with rejecting elections results. Don't act like they're bothered by tyranny.

Well, political hypocrisy isn't new of course.

Hell, "emergency" bills are done by both sides in various states.

But in this case, the legislature was explicitly attempting to do an end-run around the right of the people as enshrined in the constitution of the state, and that's what led to this standoff.

Meh. I doubt they'd care if Republicans did the same. If state borders were redrawn according to short term partisan differences, American politicians would spend more time redrawing boundaries than anything else and people would lose track of what state they're in.

[Galloism]

Well, political hypocrisy isn't new of course.

Hell, "emergency" bills are done by both sides in various states.

But in this case, the legislature was explicitly attempting to do an end-run around the right of the people as enshrined in the constitution of the state, and that's what led to this standoff.

Meh. I doubt they'd care if Republicans did the same. If state borders were redrawn according to short term partisan differences, American politicians would spend more time redrawing boundaries than anything else and people would lose track of what state they're in.

Hey, we need a new hobby.

[Bear Stearns]

China and Russia should have Cold War-tier proxy battles in seceded american territory. like imagine the KGB repeately coups the independent idaho government or their economy is entirely beholded to chinese corporations.

that would be pretty based

[San Lumen]

China and Russia should have Cold War-tier proxy battles in seceded american territory. like imagine the KGB repeately coups the independent idaho government or their economy is entirely beholded to chinese corporations.

that would be pretty based

No it wouldn't be.

[Walstibia]

Quick response,
1 yes they can move to Idaho but that place is like The Garden of Eden, so why spoil it?
2 Portland has not offended me, and I have no issue with the ruckus up there. However our Governor has raised taxes and regulations on logging, which is one of the big three exports of Oregon ( alongside grass seed and Titanium). That’s why many of the farmers are unsupportive of the Regime.
I get that it’s quite silly, but they would prefer to be in Idaho, and voted so.

Then move there. Voting to change boundaries is ridiculous.

Regime is a dumb phrase to use. The Governor and state legislature was voted in by the people of the state. Your not oppressed and stop acting like you are. To use such a phrase is an insult to those who fled dictatorial states.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." -- The Declaration of Indepenence

Dude, we didn't "move" in 1776, we "changed boundaries". We asserted our rights to dissolve political bands to Britain. Those counties have the same right to "dissolve political bands" to Oregon and assume another place, with Idaho or elsewhere. People wanna be free!

[Vassenor]

Then move there. Voting to change boundaries is ridiculous.

Regime is a dumb phrase to use. The Governor and state legislature was voted in by the people of the state. Your not oppressed and stop acting like you are. To use such a phrase is an insult to those who fled dictatorial states.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." -- The Declaration of Indepenence

Dude, we didn't "move" in 1776, we "changed boundaries". We asserted our rights to dissolve political bands to Britain. Those counties have the same right to "dissolve political bands" to Oregon and assume another place, with Idaho or elsewhere. People wanna be free!

I mean it's totally oppressive to try and do something about climate change, right?

[Shofercia]

How would making the majority of people happier increase partisan tensions?

Making the majority of voters in those counties happier =/= making the majority of people happier, since partisan tensions are not exclusive to or defined by the happenings in Eastern OR

I don't think we can conclusively say it would make things worse, but it's much easier to see how it could make things worse than how it could make things better, particularly on a national level (and frankly even at the local level; as I said, I don't think this will suddenly remove the animosity in the area, it'll just align it with new administrative boundaries)

This would enable a majority of people in every county to switch states if they so wished. How would making a majority people in every county happy, lead to a minority of people being happy?

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." -- The Declaration of Indepenence

Dude, we didn't "move" in 1776, we "changed boundaries". We asserted our rights to dissolve political bands to Britain. Those counties have the same right to "dissolve political bands" to Oregon and assume another place, with Idaho or elsewhere. People wanna be free!

I mean it's totally oppressive to try and do something about climate change, right?

If that something is ignoring a Referendum's result while imposing new taxes and regulations that are largely unnecessary, then yes, that would be oppressive, even if the bill is titled "Shiny Happy Pink Pony Climate Change"

Well, political hypocrisy isn't new of course.

Hell, "emergency" bills are done by both sides in various states.

But in this case, the legislature was explicitly attempting to do an end-run around the right of the people as enshrined in the constitution of the state, and that's what led to this standoff.

Let's not forget all those unconstitutional Morality bills Red States passed in the past few years that served no purpose but to piss off the Democrats inside those states.

I'm fairly certain that neither Republicans, nor Democrats, would be up in arms over a school board election.

You'd be surprised, in the past year there were School Board Elections that became hot topics for the right because the school boards started pushing Critical Race Theory.

Perhaps it comes from years, even decades of being oppressed by unnecessary taxation and regulations.

But largely it was that in this case.

True, and CRT is largely a discredited theory, since race-based Communism always fails.

While I sympathize, I think this would only result in retaliatory measures where liberal areas in conservative states do the same thing and as a result nothing is solved in the end. A better solution would be to introduce the electoral college to statewide elections, so that rural counties gain the same level of increased influence that rural states now have in federal elections.

You can't introduce Electoral College on a state level for the same reason that you cannot ban Electoral College on a national level - it'd be unconstitutional.

[San Lumen]

Making the majority of voters in those counties happier =/= making the majority of people happier, since partisan tensions are not exclusive to or defined by the happenings in Eastern OR

I don't think we can conclusively say it would make things worse, but it's much easier to see how it could make things worse than how it could make things better, particularly on a national level (and frankly even at the local level; as I said, I don't think this will suddenly remove the animosity in the area, it'll just align it with new administrative boundaries)

This would enable a majority of people in every county to switch states if they so wished. How would making a majority people in every county happy, lead to a minority of people being happy?

I mean it's totally oppressive to try and do something about climate change, right?

If that something is ignoring a Referendum's result while imposing new taxes and regulations that are largely unnecessary, then yes, that would be oppressive, even if the bill is titled "Shiny Happy Pink Pony Climate Change"

Let's not forget all those unconstitutional Morality bills Red States passed in the past few years that served no purpose but to piss off the Democrats inside those states.


You'd be surprised, in the past year there were School Board Elections that became hot topics for the right because the school boards started pushing Critical Race Theory.


But largely it was that in this case.

True, and CRT is largely a discredited theory, since race-based Communism always fails.

While I sympathize, I think this would only result in retaliatory measures where liberal areas in conservative states do the same thing and as a result nothing is solved in the end. A better solution would be to introduce the electoral college to statewide elections, so that rural counties gain the same level of increased influence that rural states now have in federal elections.

You can't introduce Electoral College on a state level for the same reason that you cannot ban Electoral College on a national level - it'd be unconstitutional.

Why doesn’t Texas break apart then? Atlanta metro area should leave Georgia? Charlotte should leave North Carolina?

In a democracy you accept election results. You don’t throw a temper tantrum and succeed.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why doesn’t Texas break apart then? Atlanta metro area should leave Georgia? Charlotte should leave North Carolina?

In a democracy you accept election results. You don’t throw a temper tantrum and succeed.

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

Some people get to live under laws they prefer?

It seems like an overall increase in utility to me. If people want to vote to join a different state that's absolutely fine by me. Yes this includes Texas and Atlanta.

[San Lumen]

Why doesn’t Texas break apart then? Atlanta metro area should leave Georgia? Charlotte should leave North Carolina?

In a democracy you accept election results. You don’t throw a temper tantrum and succeed.

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

Some people get to live under laws they prefer?

It seems like an overall increase in utility to me. If people want to vote to join a different state that's absolutely fine by me. Yes this includes Texas and Atlanta.

Move elsewhere instead of changing boundaries. Why doesn’t London and regions of the UK vote to leave?

[Ostroeuropa]

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

Some people get to live under laws they prefer?

It seems like an overall increase in utility to me. If people want to vote to join a different state that's absolutely fine by me. Yes this includes Texas and Atlanta.

Move elsewhere instead of changing boundaries. Why doesn’t London and regions of the UK vote to leave?

You haven't answered the question.

Why should they move? What good would moving do? What harm would be prevented? It seems that instead of being like "This harms nobody and only seems to benefit those in the area who would prefer to live under a different state", you'd rather actively harm the individuals for no particular reason or benefit to anybody.

Seceding from a nation is not the same thing as voting to be a part of a different electoral district.

[San Lumen]

Move elsewhere instead of changing boundaries. Why doesn’t London and regions of the UK vote to leave?

You haven't answered the question.

Why should they move? What good would moving do? What harm would be prevented? It seems that instead of being like "This harms nobody and only seems to benefit those in the area who would prefer to live under a different state", you'd rather actively harm the individuals for no particular reason or benefit to anybody.

Seceding from a nation is not the same thing as voting to be a part of a different electoral district.

Because in a democracy you don't throw a temper tantrum and change boundaries because you lost an election or multiple ones.

state boundaries in the US have only been changed a few times and this will not even be given the time of day by Salem.

[Senkaku]

Why doesn’t Texas break apart then? Atlanta metro area should leave Georgia? Charlotte should leave North Carolina?

In a democracy you accept election results. You don’t throw a temper tantrum and succeed.

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

The same thing that always happens when you set the precedent that separatism is permissible in some form? Again, we’re talking about the place where the Malheur Wildlife Refuge siege happened only a few years ago and this is being driven by some of the same people; it may start with separatism against Oregon but with the country in the state it’s in, it’s easy to see how that could spiral out of control. They join Idaho, counties in California and New York start trying to peel off, blue cities in red states start trying to break away, and boom, suddenly you have paramilitary mobilization on both sides across the country, demonstrations for or against various separatist sects— you think the checkpoint incident in Portland was bad? Wait till there’s checkpoints outside every major city in the country and street fighting in swing-y suburbs that both sides want to bring into their separatist fold.

People may not like everything about the current administrative boundaries, but we’ve made them work this far. No reason to let a bunch of disinformation-addled heavily-armed rednecks ruin an okay thing we’ve got going just because they’re mad that some gigantic logging companies can no longer decimate Oregon’s old-growth forests to *quite* the same extent or whatever. If they can’t live in a democratic society unless their side is winning, they’ve got the same problem as Lumen, frankly— worse, in fact, since they prefer a slate of policies which are explicitly anti-democratic, when you look away from their noble struggle for “self-determination.”

[San Lumen]

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

The same thing that always happens when you set the precedent that separatism is permissible in some form? Again, we’re talking about the place where the Malheur Wildlife Refuge siege happened only a few years ago and this is being driven by some of the same people; it may start with separatism against Oregon but with the country in the state it’s in, it’s easy to see how that could spiral out of control. They join Idaho, counties in California and New York start trying to peel off, blue cities in red states start trying to break away, and boom, suddenly you have paramilitary mobilization on both sides across the country, demonstrations for or against various separatist sects— you think the checkpoint incident in Portland was bad? Wait till there’s checkpoints outside every major city in the country and street fighting in swing-y suburbs that both sides want to bring into their separatist fold.

People may not like everything about the current administrative boundaries, but we’ve made them work this far. No reason to let a bunch of disinformation-addled heavily-armed rednecks ruin an okay thing we’ve got going just because they’re mad that some gigantic logging companies can no longer decimate Oregon’s old-growth forests to *quite* the same extent or whatever. If they can’t live in a democratic society unless their side is winning, they’ve got the same problem as Lumen, frankly— worse, in fact, since they prefer a slate of policies which are explicitly anti-democratic, when you look away from their noble struggle for “self-determination.”

You said it far better than me hence why the legislature won't indulge this lunacy. Its truly sad how they don't care about what they are doing to forests and those innocent creatures that live there.

[Ostroeuropa]

You haven't answered the question.

Why should they move? What good would moving do? What harm would be prevented? It seems that instead of being like "This harms nobody and only seems to benefit those in the area who would prefer to live under a different state", you'd rather actively harm the individuals for no particular reason or benefit to anybody.

Seceding from a nation is not the same thing as voting to be a part of a different electoral district.

Because in a democracy you don't throw a temper tantrum and change boundaries because you lost an election or multiple ones.

state boundaries in the US have only been changed a few times and this will not even be given the time of day by Salem.

This is not an answer to the question.

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

The same thing that always happens when you set the precedent that separatism is permissible in some form? Again, we’re talking about the place where the Malheur Wildlife Refuge siege happened only a few years ago and this is being driven by some of the same people; it may start with separatism against Oregon but with the country in the state it’s in, it’s easy to see how that could spiral out of control. They join Idaho, counties in California and New York start trying to peel off, blue cities in red states start trying to break away, and boom, suddenly you have paramilitary mobilization on both sides across the country, demonstrations for or against various separatist sects— you think the checkpoint incident in Portland was bad? Wait till there’s checkpoints outside every major city in the country and street fighting in swing-y suburbs that both sides want to bring into their separatist fold.

People may not like everything about the current administrative boundaries, but we’ve made them work this far. No reason to let a bunch of disinformation-addled heavily-armed rednecks ruin an okay thing we’ve got going just because they’re mad that some gigantic logging companies can no longer decimate Oregon’s old-growth forests to *quite* the same extent or whatever. If they can’t live in a democratic society unless their side is winning, they’ve got the same problem as Lumen, frankly— worse, in fact, since they prefer a slate of policies which are explicitly anti-democratic, when you look away from their noble struggle for “self-determination.”

This is an argument against Enclaves, not districts joining a different state with which they are contiguous. I quite agree with you that Enclaves are not a desirable thing and that harm would arise from their emergence. What harm arises from contiguous secession movements?

[The Two Jerseys]

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

Some people get to live under laws they prefer?

It seems like an overall increase in utility to me. If people want to vote to join a different state that's absolutely fine by me. Yes this includes Texas and Atlanta.

Move elsewhere instead of changing boundaries. Why doesn’t London and regions of the UK vote to leave?

*facepalm*

[Senkaku]

The same thing that always happens when you set the precedent that separatism is permissible in some form? Again, we’re talking about the place where the Malheur Wildlife Refuge siege happened only a few years ago and this is being driven by some of the same people; it may start with separatism against Oregon but with the country in the state it’s in, it’s easy to see how that could spiral out of control. They join Idaho, counties in California and New York start trying to peel off, blue cities in red states start trying to break away, and boom, suddenly you have paramilitary mobilization on both sides across the country, demonstrations for or against various separatist sects— you think the checkpoint incident in Portland was bad? Wait till there’s checkpoints outside every major city in the country and street fighting in swing-y suburbs that both sides want to bring into their separatist fold.

People may not like everything about the current administrative boundaries, but we’ve made them work this far. No reason to let a bunch of disinformation-addled heavily-armed rednecks ruin an okay thing we’ve got going just because they’re mad that some gigantic logging companies can no longer decimate Oregon’s old-growth forests to *quite* the same extent or whatever. If they can’t live in a democratic society unless their side is winning, they’ve got the same problem as Lumen, frankly— worse, in fact, since they prefer a slate of policies which are explicitly anti-democratic, when you look away from their noble struggle for “self-determination.”

This is an argument against Enclaves, not districts joining a different state with which they are contiguous. I quite agree with you that Enclaves are not a desirable thing and that harm would arise from their emergence. What harm arises from contiguous secession movements?

...the exact thing I said? Contiguous boundaries or not have nothing to do with it; the problem is the principle of separatism and the road it leads down. Did you actually read what I said, or did you just roll your eyes and skim it a little? People can fight over contiguous boundaries just as well as over enclaves and exclaves, and changing contiguous boundaries in this case could spark a wave of boundary changes of all kinds.

You’re basically saying “people killing in each other while standing in concentric circles would be bad, but what’s wrong with killing each other while standing in parallel lines?”

[Dresderstan]

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

Some people get to live under laws they prefer?

It seems like an overall increase in utility to me. If people want to vote to join a different state that's absolutely fine by me. Yes this includes Texas and Atlanta.

Move elsewhere instead of changing boundaries. Why doesn’t London and regions of the UK vote to leave?

No.

[Punished UMN]

You haven't answered the question.

Why should they move? What good would moving do? What harm would be prevented? It seems that instead of being like "This harms nobody and only seems to benefit those in the area who would prefer to live under a different state", you'd rather actively harm the individuals for no particular reason or benefit to anybody.

Seceding from a nation is not the same thing as voting to be a part of a different electoral district.

Because in a democracy you don't throw a temper tantrum and change boundaries because you lost an election or multiple ones.

state boundaries in the US have only been changed a few times and this will not even be given the time of day by Salem.

There is nothing wrong with changing boundaries or secession as long as it is democratically done. As I have said multiple times and which you have not addressed at all, if the political center has more power over the governance of a community than the community itself, then the premise of popular sovereignty upon which the constitution and democracy itself are supposedly based is facetious, and we all must acknowledge that state power and legitimacy originates from precedent and/or the ability to apply violence, and not from the approval of the population.