Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[Salus Maior]

The problem here being that if Salem overrules the counties they're denying representation and democratic process to a far greater amount of people than if the counties were to secede. Again, we're talking about the majorities in multiple counties.

Except that they are not because they are representing the majority of the state and democratic and so far greater amount of people are not harmed. Why are you limiting it to those counties when you consider who is harmed?

The majority of the state resides in the blue counties, and Portland itself. Why should they have a right to deny democratic process to communities they don't live in? Shouldn't the communities themselves decide how they want their government to be shaped?

[Luminesa]

Or about people accept we have a democracy and just be quiet? Are they supposed to teleport their farm someplace else?

Then freaking move to Idaho or shut up and stop whining.

Then freaking move back to Oregon or shut up and stop whining

All aboard the Oregon Trail, pick four friends and don't die of dysentery.

[Salus Maior]

To quote at least 5 of your posts "They should just move"

Or how about people accept we have a democracy and just be quiet? Are they supposed to teleport their farm someplace else?

You're an incredible hypocrite.

And no, we don't have democracy.

[Neutraligon]

The same could be said if we went house by house instead, but I do not see people suggesting that. More then that if Salem says no, then it could also be argued that the fewest amount of people would be harmed using the exact same argument that you are arguing for.

How would "house by house" change the verdict? The referendum already expresses the majorities of people in the counties.

And no, it couldn't be argued. You're frankly making zero sense.

You are arguing that the counties should be allowed to leave because the majority in those counties wish to leave and that majority is harmed if Salem does not allow them to leave. However, there are those within those counties that wish to remain part of Oregon, and who are objectively harmed if the counties leave (namely Cannabis growers and the like). Why are you ignoring their wants and needs? If the majority does not matter when it comes to the state government and Salem saying no, then why does it matter for this referendum.

[San Lumen]

Except that they are not because they are representing the majority of the state and democratic and so far greater amount of people are not harmed. Why are you limiting it to those counties when you consider who is harmed?

The majority of the state resides in the blue counties, and Portland itself. Why should they have a right to deny democratic process to communities they don't live in? Shouldn't the communities themselves decide how they want their government to be shaped?

should the three C's leave Ohio to become their own entity?

[Neutraligon]

Except that they are not because they are representing the majority of the state and democratic and so far greater amount of people are not harmed. Why are you limiting it to those counties when you consider who is harmed?

The majority of the state resides in the blue counties, and Portland itself. Why should they have a right to deny democratic process to communities they don't live in? Shouldn't the communities themselves decide how they want their government to be shaped?

For the same reason that those counties can deny those that do not wish to leave Oregon.

[South Americanastan]

Then freaking move back to Oregon or shut up and stop whining

All aboard the Oregon Trail, pick four friends and don't die of dysentery.

That one actually got a laugh out of me.

[South Americanastan]

The majority of the state resides in the blue counties, and Portland itself. Why should they have a right to deny democratic process to communities they don't live in? Shouldn't the communities themselves decide how they want their government to be shaped?

should the three C's leave Ohio to become their own entity?

If they want too, yes

[Salus Maior]

The majority of the state resides in the blue counties, and Portland itself. Why should they have a right to deny democratic process to communities they don't live in? Shouldn't the communities themselves decide how they want their government to be shaped?

should the three C's leave Ohio to become their own entity?

If they want to, sure. Or join a different state, like what's happening here.

You keep asking this, do you expect a different answer?

[San Lumen]

should the three C's leave Ohio to become their own entity?

If they want too, yes

Yet they aren't going too because they accept we have a democracy unlike these people.

[Luminesa]

All aboard the Oregon Trail, pick four friends and don't die of dysentery.

That one actually got a laugh out of me.

I am here all week. XD

[South Americanastan]

If they want too, yes

Yet they aren't going too because they accept we have a democracy unlike these people.

If a majority of people want something, they get something. That is the definition of democracy.

[Salus Maior]

The majority of the state resides in the blue counties, and Portland itself. Why should they have a right to deny democratic process to communities they don't live in? Shouldn't the communities themselves decide how they want their government to be shaped?

For the same reason that those counties can deny those that do not wish to leave Oregon.

The issue here is that a single household or farm isn't a political denomination. A county is, for better or worse, and the counties have expressed what they want to do in a clear majority. Why should they be denied?

[San Lumen]

Yet they aren't going too because they accept we have a democracy unlike these people.

If a majority of people want something, they get something. That is the definition of democracy.

Just like the majority who voted in California to ban same sex marriage even though it was unconstitutional? Good thing your not in charge.

[Salus Maior]

If they want too, yes

Yet they aren't going too because they accept we have a democracy unlike these people.

If the people express something in a legal and passing majority, and they can simply be ignored, then no, we don't live in a democracy.

And besides "these people" clearly believe they live in a democracy considering they're doing these referenda.

[Neutraligon]

For the same reason that those counties can deny those that do not wish to leave Oregon.

The issue here is that a single household or farm isn't a political denomination. A county is, for better or worse, and the counties have expressed what they want to do in a clear majority. Why should they be denied?

And so is a state, and yet you seem to want to treat the county differently from the state.

[San Lumen]

Yet they aren't going too because they accept we have a democracy unlike these people.

If the people express something in a legal and passing majority, and they can simply be ignored, then no, we don't live in a democracy.

You as President in 1861: The south chose to succeed in a vote of the legislature. Who are we to deny them?

[The Two Jerseys]

They're not looking to set up a separate government. They want to join Idaho.

Then freaking move to Idaho or shut up and stop whining.

So should black people have either moved north or shut up and stopped whining about using a separate water fountain?

[San Lumen]

Then freaking move to Idaho or shut up and stop whining.

So should black people have either moved north or shut up and stopped whining about using a separate water fountain?

That is different. Some did move. Others chose to stay and fight for their rights and they succeeded.

[The Two Jerseys]

So should black people have either moved north or shut up and stopped whining about using a separate water fountain?

That is different. Some did move. Others chose to stay and fight for their rights and they succeeded.

Except it's not different.

[South Americanastan]

So should black people have either moved north or shut up and stopped whining about using a separate water fountain?

That is different. Some did move. Others chose to stay and fight for their rights and they succeeded.

How was it different? Black people were still uprooted.

[San Lumen]

That is different. Some did move. Others chose to stay and fight for their rights and they succeeded.

Except it's not different.

yes it is. You don't chose your skin color. You can chose where you live.

[The Two Jerseys]

Except it's not different.

yes it is. You don't chose your skin color. You can chose where you live.

And southern blacks could choose to live somewhere else.

[San Lumen]

yes it is. You don't chose your skin color. You can chose where you live.

And southern blacks could choose to live somewhere else.

And many didn't and chose instead to fight for their rights and then elect people of their choosing. it took until 2019 for Montgomery a majority black city to elect a black mayor.

[Salus Maior]

The issue here is that a single household or farm isn't a political denomination. A county is, for better or worse, and the counties have expressed what they want to do in a clear majority. Why should they be denied?

And so is a state, and yet you seem to want to treat the county differently from the state.

Because I believe in the principle of Subsidiary. Which means, decision-making powers should be given as much as practically possible to the smallest constituencies so that the people can run and shape their own localities. If a locality can feasibly decide something, they should have the power to do it and make decisions on it rather than some distant central government that has no share in the community. Switzerland actually runs on this principle, as an example, and it works well for them.

Switzerland actually had the same problem that we're talking about here during the Jura crisis. Their solution? Let the communes vote on whether they want a new Canton representing them, which they did. So they literally created a new canton. And they didn't burst into flames, they're better off now. I think that solution would solve a lot of Oregon's problems and they would be similarly better off if they allow democracy to do its work and accept the counties' referenda.

I think Subsidiary goes hand-in-hand with genuine democracy, which Switzerland is and America is not.