Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[San Lumen]

What solution is there for the issues I addressed? Some of them can’t be solved by just give them what they want. You can’t make every marijuana farmer an enclave or exclave.

You'd know if you've been reading what I've been writing.

Idaho and Oregon can make compromises for the counties in question. For example, within the seceding counties there can be exemptions for weed growers to operate and continue their business. Even if they're not allowed to operate within the entirety of Idaho.

Think of it in the same way "dry counties" operate. You can't sell alcohol in some counties, even if it's legal in the whole state. Except in this case weed growing and selling would be legal in some counties and not in others.

I doubt Idaho ever agrees to that. Heres a novel idea how about they accept they live in a democracy and respect the outcome of elections and they means they have less representation and less likely to see the candidates they want get elected to statewide office.

[Washington Resistance Army]

What would you replace it with?

Almost anything at this point, because our system really, really sucks.

You'd know if you've been reading what I've been writing.

Idaho and Oregon can make compromises for the counties in question. For example, within the seceding counties there can be exemptions for weed growers to operate and continue their business. Even if they're not allowed to operate within the entirety of Idaho.

Think of it in the same way "dry counties" operate. You can't sell alcohol in some counties, even if it's legal in the whole state. Except in this case weed growing and selling would be legal in some counties and not in others.

I doubt Idaho ever agrees to that. Heres a novel idea how about they accept they live in a democracy and respect the outcome of elections.

Why didn't African Americans accept they live in a democracy and respect Jim Crow? It's what the majority wanted after all.

[Salus Maior]

You'd know if you've been reading what I've been writing.

Idaho and Oregon can make compromises for the counties in question. For example, within the seceding counties there can be exemptions for weed growers to operate and continue their business. Even if they're not allowed to operate within the entirety of Idaho.

Think of it in the same way "dry counties" operate. You can't sell alcohol in some counties, even if it's legal in the whole state. Except in this case weed growing and selling would be legal in some counties and not in others.

I doubt Idaho ever agrees to that. Heres a novel idea how about they accept they live in a democracy and respect the outcome of elections.

While the same "democracy" doesn't respect legal referenda.

[San Lumen]

What would you replace it with?

Almost anything at this point, because our system really, really sucks.

I doubt Idaho ever agrees to that. Heres a novel idea how about they accept they live in a democracy and respect the outcome of elections.

Why didn't African Americans accept they live in a democracy and respect Jim Crow? It's what the majority wanted after all.

Tell me what you'd replace it with.

Treating someone differently due to skin color is not the same as boundary changes because you don't like outcomes of elections.

The majority didn't;t want it. If elections were free and fair after Reconstruction in the South Jim Crow would have never happened.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Tell me what you'd replace it with.

Ideally an agrarian socialist system with a planned economy and a focus towards sustainability in all things. But that'll never happen because capital is much too powerful.

The majority didn't;t want it. If elections were free and fair after Reconstruction in the South Jim Crow would have never happened.

But it is what the majority wanted. The south was electing segregationists by huge margins well into the 60's and 70's. We practically had to force them at gun point to abandon it.

[San Lumen]

Tell me what you'd replace it with.

Ideally an agrarian socialist system with a planned economy and a focus towards sustainability in all things. But that'll never happen because capital is much too powerful.

The majority didn't;t want it. If elections were free and fair after Reconstruction in the South Jim Crow would have never happened.

But it is what the majority wanted. The south was electing segregationists by huge margins well into the 60's and 70's. We practically had to force them at gun point to abandon it.

How the heck are you going to return to an agrarian system?

only because we abruptly ended Reconstruction. If had been done more gradually its possible Jim Crow and segregation might have never happened.

They deserved to be. Segregation is never ok.

[Kowani]

Tell me what you'd replace it with.

Ideally an agrarian socialist system with a planned economy and a focus towards sustainability in all things. But that'll never happen because capital is much too powerful.

The majority didn't;t want it. If elections were free and fair after Reconstruction in the South Jim Crow would have never happened.

But it is what the majority wanted. The south was electing segregationists by huge margins well into the 60's and 70's. We practically had to force them at gun point to abandon it.

to be fair
this really depends on the state
mississippi, for example, only got there by mass voter/election fraud on the part of white people in the early years in order to set up the permanent regime of unfree elections
but other states-say, arkansas-yeah no jim crow was locked in from the beginning

[The Blaatschapen]

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.

Especially since we don't know how the population of Idaho feels about it.

There's a good reason why, for example, the Goof Friday Agreement between UK and NI specifies that both the NI populace and the ROI populace need to agree to a merger, if there is ever the motivation to do so.

[Your Own Private FlorIDAHO]

That is the issue. They are being outvoted not by themselves within their self-governing jurisdictions (counties), but by outsiders from the other counties (using the State legislature) to impose how the outside counties operate upon them.

This is one of the key grievances in the unanimous Declaration recognized as a tenet for reorganization. It is why we have Pennsylvania as distinguished from New Jersey, and Delaware; an independent Vermont from Massachusetts by the end of the Colonial era and West Virginia since Independence. Most of the time reorganization is peaceful. A few times counties have been at war within themselves over the seats of their own jurisdiction as well as a state of mixed war, the last being in 1950s. In western states until recently it was expected for counties growing beyond 35,000 people to split into more counties. Unfortunately, there is a move generally to resist this since the 1950s by the county seats because it diminishes their administrative power base.

The movement in this case is out of a disaffected and disinterested State jurisdiction not to its own State, but into an already established State jurisdiction that shares their interest and good will in common.

The resistance to split off since the 1950s is largely due to the advent of the Interstate Highways System and modern air travel. It's been made easier to relocate.

Look, if those dirt poor (and some bankrupted) Okies from the Dust Bowl could find the means to get all the way to California from the plains with no modern highways then these few folks in counties bordering Idaho can move. Otherwise these bumpkins really aren't trying to solve their problem. Instead they're trying to cause problems. I say forget 'em and move on.

[Your Own Private FlorIDAHO]

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.

Oh yeah no I disagree with it too, I'm just taking the piss out of all the people who are complaining about the folks in these counties who wouldn't want to join Idaho or would be shafted because of it. Their whole "lol just move, dumb hicks" mantra goes both ways.

Plenty of weed growing peeps nationwide have relocated. Sure, that knife has already cut both ways. It happens irl.

Y'all are pissing into the wind on this thread. Doubt it'll cool you down.

[Shofercia]

Did laws passed in Richmond apply to Wheeling in the mid 1860s?

Not the same.

I'd rather not have some bureaucrats and politicians make laws about local issues without any regard to local conditions.

It’s funny how some seemingly staunch American Leftists are so triggered by some rural yokels voting to join a neighbouring state at their own volition. What happened to freedom and letting people do what they want?

I find it funny how quickly the American Right bounces from FUCK YOUR FEELINGS and IF YOU DONT LIKE IT LEAVE to demanding that they be coddled by the government.

How're they demanding to be coddled by the government?

[Salus Maior]

It’s funny how some seemingly staunch American Leftists are so triggered by some rural yokels voting to join a neighbouring state at their own volition. What happened to freedom and letting people do what they want?

I find it funny how quickly the American Right bounces from FUCK YOUR FEELINGS and IF YOU DONT LIKE IT LEAVE to demanding that they be coddled by the government.

I wouldn't consider myself as being part of the "American Right". Nor do I say either of those things.

[Shofercia]

You're actually claiming that Trump's Cult controls the Republican Party, while at the same time claiming that it doesn't control Collins, who's a Republican... And proceeding to defend Cheney, even though her fiscal policies, (ya know, bad fiscal policy, the reason Republicans lost Georgia,) are a death knell for the Populist and Libertarian factions of the Republican Party.

Normally, when people say "we don't want someone who will destroy our power to lead us" - that's a good thing. But because Cheney also said "Orange Man Bad" - she's not being booted for bad leadership, nope, it's all about Trump. At this point I have to wonder, if I shoot a white male and say "Orange Man Bad" am I even going to be prosecuted in a Blue State? Aside from "Orange Man Bad" and its related policies, can you name a single policy that Cheney has that you support?

Please feel free to go back and read my earlier post where I specifically pointed out that there are Republicans who aren't chugging the Trump kool-aid, but are forced to tolerate and encourage the kool-aid chuggers because they represent the bedrock of their base now. Mitch McConnell is one of those people, but because it is all about power, he's not going to throw away a Senate seat he can't get back just to make the cult happy, and will instead try to mollify them by stonewalling Biden on everything and burying the Jan 6th commission and promising to enthusiastically support Trump if/when he wins the nomination in '24.

Ah, yes, the Trump voters now form the bedrock of the Republican base. Anything to trash Republicans, eh Myrensis? Your reaction, when a Republican other than Trump wins in 2024 is going to be quite interesting to watch. Riddle me this: if Trumpists form the Republican Bedrock, how come so few of them actually went to his blog that's been manually shut down for inactivity? Trump's great for some Republicans, because he trashes the shit out of some Clintonite Democrats who shipped their jobs overseas, but he's not some deity that's held on a pedestal by most Republicans.

Also, you really need to get over this, "If you love Liz Cheney so much why don't you marry her!?" trip. No matter how many times you try to insist it's so, I am not "defending" Liz Cheney by pointing out that she was removed from her leadership position because she keeps provoking Trump and his cultists.

You remind me of Trump being angry and confused about why everyone didn't praise him for firing Comey, on the apparent theory that if you don't like someone you must just blindly cheer when something unpleasant happens to them regardless of context or circumstances.

The power of projection is extraordinary in that post. "I'm not defending Cheney, I'm just saying that she's being removed from her leadership position for a bullshit reason, but totally not defending her, nope, not one bit!"

Ah, so stating facts is bad if it shows Liberals doing bad things. Gotcha. I'll make sure to continue doing that. Also, my point was that it's not the entire Republican Party that's doing X, that's pretty much been the gist of my argument, that you've missed. You actually missed the main part of my argument. That's bad.

So..exactly what I said, trying to use a random liberal on the internet saying something silly to "bothsame" the bad behavior of the elected officials of the Republican Party on the State and National level actively legislating voter suppression and promoting denial of reality.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Care to show me where I argued that they're both the same? Seems like a strawman record's slowly building up.

Please note that when I parodied your logic, I didn't actually need to come up with utter bullshit like a random YouTube video, which I never claimed was the basis for anything. You're setting up strawmen and knocking them down.

Try to keep up, Shofercia, we're not talking about you, we're talking about the Republican Party.

Ah, so when you're responding to me, you get to make strawmen arguments, because someone in the Republican Party made those arguments, while telling me that a fact is anecdotal evidence because I compared it to something in your mind only. Gotcha.

Which is in fact using youtube videos and internet conspiracy theories as the basis for legislation and lawsuits and denying reality in general.

You mean how the Liberal Media pretended that claiming that Trump didn't have pee-pee tapes, or that COVID-19 would never, ever, ever, have originated from a lab, and anyone saying otherwise was a complete idiot? Or the whole Jussie Smollet case? Or Iraqi WMDs? Or the Arab Spring bringing prosperity and democracy? You mean those aspects of denying reality? Yeah, I've seen quite a few. Talk about conspiracy theories, they're crazy I tell ya!

After all, it's totally typical for Hollywood actors to go out in the middle of the night to Subway, where they managed to get ran into by white supremacists, in MAGA hats, who happen to carry lynching tools, in subzero temperature, why that happens all the time in Chicago, and all white supremacists just love the show Empire, so much so that they can recognize its lead actor in pitch black Chicago night, and anyone saying otherwise is just a crazy loon!

Which is why the Supreme Court shut Trump down, because he and his supporters showed up with a clown car of incompetent lawyers demanding they void an election on the basis of youtube videos and conspiracy theories and "affidavits" from people who just had a gut feeling that something bad was happening.

Ah, yes, these arguments were totally clown car arguments, whereas the arguments in Bush v Gore were stellar symbols of legalese literature, on par with Brown v Board of Education! That was sarcasm, Myrensis.

This is now the third argument that I've made, that you've completely misunderstood, in a row. Nowhere did I claim that Bush v Gore had a veneer of respectability, you just made that up, Myrensis, to buttress your point. Like you made up the YouTube video. Like you pretended that I was claiming that the entire Republican Party was X, when my argument was the exact opposite. This isn't a debate for you, this is verbal combat...

Again, Shofercia, not everything is about you. I was pointing out that the same Supreme Court that gutted the VRA to ease Republican voter suppression efforts also installed Bush as President despite him losing the vote because he brought competent lawyers who were able to make a coherent (though still bullshit) case about stopping a recount, not demanding they brazenly throw out potentially millions of ballots in multiple states on the basis of internet conspiracy theories and Bush's hurt feelings. In response to your insistence that the fact that they sided with Biden somehow negates their track record.

Well, if they're track record was pro-Republican, and they sided with Biden in the biggest ruling, i.e. "who's US President" then it, uh, negates at least a part of their track record. I should also point out that Justice Breyer said something against Court Packing, and isn't he a Liberal? Oh right, he's also bad because he's against your viewpoint, gotcha. And voter suppression deserves its own thread.

The conservatives on SCOTUS are happy to help their party subvert democracy for partisan gain, but they're very keen about making it look respectable and legitimate, two words that have never shared a zip code with Donald Trump. Greg Abbot and the other Republicans pushing stricter voter suppression measures and rewriting election laws to appease Trump and his delusional supporters on the other hand do know how to look respectable, and how to make coherent arguments about how they're totally just trying to protect the integrity of our elections!

Voter suppression, or lack thereof, deserves its own topic, but I'll just admit the basic fact: Stacey Abrams lost.

You do realize that people can be removed from positions of leadership for numerous reasons, right? Or does the "Orange Man Bad" argument shine so bright, that everything else is blinded? You clearly only want to talk about the Trump Faction in the Republican Party, ignoring the Populists and the Libertarians. As I've explained to you, repeatedly, the Trump Faction was allowed to remove Cheney because her policies did not coincide with the other, remaining factions within the Republican Party.

When one faction attacks you, and no factions defend you, then you get removed from leadership, since one is greater than zero, and my guess is that she'll probably get successfully primaried. I doubt that Collins will get successfully primaried, even there might be a challenge, but my guess is that Cheney's primary challenger will easily outraise Collins' primary challenger. Going back to the topic at hand, it seems that all Democrats see when it comes to Republicans is the Trump Faction. And that explains a lot of the posts in this thread about the five seceding counties, where the Democrats view the state changers not as farmers and loggers just trying to create a better life for their kids, but as Bundy Insurrectionists.

Well, I have both of the efforts to oust Cheney following her vocal criticisms of Trump and conspiracy theories, and the House Minority Leader being caught on hot mic declaring his intent to remove her and bitching about her refusal to shut up the day after she did so.

You have..a theory that it was actually totally about unrelated policy disputes, on the basis that it has to be that in order for your defense of the GOP to work.

As you've admitted with Collins, Trump Republicans don't get everything they want. Even you admitted that, Myrensis. Without support of the rest of the party, Trumpists were unable to oust Collins, who, in fact, played a critical role as part of a key Senate Group of Ten. Some infrastructure bill trying to repair America's aging roads, I'm sure it's not as important was anti-Trump investigation number over 9000. My point was that the Trumpists could want to remove Cheney all day long, but they were only able to do so, because her fiscal policies led to Libertarians and Populists opposing her.

There are only two factions in the Republican Party: The Trump Faction, and the Trump Enablers Faction. People like Collins and Cheney now constitute the lunatic fringe of the party not on any policy basis, but because they refuse to either worship at the altar of Trump or to just smile and nod at the crazies while they do.

Wow, Trump really does live rent free in so many heads, lots of real estate! It's like he's a real estate mogul or something. Also, I've yet to meet a Republican who calls Collins a lunatic, but I'll be sure to take the word of an online poster for it. Oh, and only the Sith deal in absolutes.

The problem is that fairly soon, if not already, that's how the Republicans will view the Democrats, as Clintonite Liars, Obama Promise-Breakers, Biden Corruptionists, and Harris Jailers. And therein lies the rub, of how America becomes more and more divided, since each political party will only see the absolute worse of the other party, as you've so aptly demonstrated. And that's bad.

Thankfully, most Americans aren't buying that cool aid, and are demanding a third party instead: https://news.gallup.com/poll/329639/sup ... point.aspx

(Image)

You're several decades too late. Trump didn't fundamentally alter anything within the GOP, he is just the culmination of decades of GOP propaganda and conspiracy theories about the evils of government and immigrants, the Clinton body count, Obama the Kenyan, the massive (unprovable) voter fraud that happens in every election that Republicans lose, the climate change hoax, the Democratic plot to turn America into a communist Muslim dictatorship, etc. etc. etc.

Trump wasn't able to hijack the Republican base overnight because of his eloquence and detailed policy plans, he was able to do it because the GOP was the Party of Trump long before Trump himself arrived, he just told them it was okay to let their crazy flag proudly fly instead of putting up pretenses.

Right, so with you it's not just "Orange Man Bad" but rather "All Republicans bad" gotcha. Yeah, no, I'm not going to buy that crap, and, btw, tell me, was the PATRIOT Act a good thing? Or would it be ok for a few Libertarians, who happen to be Republican, to point out that it was bad, without being a Trump enabler?

[Shofercia]

What happened to respecting democracy and the outcome of elections?

You do realize that these people voted on these measures, no?

Derp.

They do not feel fairly represented by the current arrangement and democratically exercised their right to attempt to change it. That's about all the validity they need.

Just admit you hate these people already.

So because they can't discriminate against the LGBT community and the government wants a profitable industry to actually pay its share of tax, thus making taxes lower for regular citizens, they want out.

The Government of Oregon wants the FAANG companies to pay their fair share of taxes?! That's awesome!

If that's the case, then have the towns vote. Farmers can vote in a town-based referendum. State-owned land does not switch jurisdiction.

And create a mess of enclaves and exclaves? That’s not practical.

Map of LA City:

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.

And Staten Island was fucked up as a result. Are you sure you want to use that as an example, Lumen?

This is not a solution to any kind of politics and it makes you look stupid for continuing to suggest it.

Use your head, Lumen. At least once you drop the cognitive dissonance and partisan bias.

I am using it. It’s simply not going to happen that Oregon gives away two thirds of their land. Plus you have the issue of federal owned land, state highways, towns that don’t want to leave, people whose livelihoods would be ruined by the boundary change.

You have a solution to any of that?

How would federally owned land be an issue?

You'd know if you've been reading what I've been writing.

Idaho and Oregon can make compromises for the counties in question. For example, within the seceding counties there can be exemptions for weed growers to operate and continue their business. Even if they're not allowed to operate within the entirety of Idaho.

Think of it in the same way "dry counties" operate. You can't sell alcohol in some counties, even if it's legal in the whole state. Except in this case weed growing and selling would be legal in some counties and not in others.

I doubt Idaho ever agrees to that. Heres a novel idea how about they accept they live in a democracy and respect the outcome of elections and they means they have less representation and less likely to see the candidates they want get elected to statewide office.

So states are sacrosanct, but not when it comes to the Electoral College?

[Neutraligon]

What's the cost/spending balance for these counties? I get very suspicious when I hear "local control" that they're expecting money to keep coming from the cities, except now by the magic of Democracy they get to spend it. Or embezzle it more likely.

I have been trying to look up if these counties are net producers are users of state tax money. So far haven't find out.

[Salus Maior]

So states are sacrosanct, but not when it comes to the Electoral College?

No, states are sacrosanct but only when they're blue.

[San Lumen]

Not the same.

I'd rather not have some bureaucrats and politicians make laws about local issues without any regard to local conditions.

I find it funny how quickly the American Right bounces from FUCK YOUR FEELINGS and IF YOU DONT LIKE IT LEAVE to demanding that they be coddled by the government.

How're they demanding to be coddled by the government?

What are suggesting? the legislature can’t make laws for certain areas? What the point of legislature if it’s jurisdiction doesn’t apply to the whole state?

[Senkaku]

https://www.ijpr.org/environment-energy-and-transportation/2021-05-23/irrigators-set-up-encampment-next-to-klamath-project-headgates

^ somewhat related-- far-right agitator Ammon Bundy and others are openly planning to force open a key irrigation canal in the Klamath Basin, as the massive drought impacting much of Oregon and the Western US has led to water being cut off to farmers and massive fish kills in the low, overheated river

I'm pretty sure this is completely unrelated to a referendum deciding whether counties stay in one state or another.

Well, naturally you don't; you've so totally and pompously divorced your squealing about the philosophical principle of self-determination from the specific reality of the case as to even be interested in understanding why *these* particular counties are doing this, in understanding what's going on in Eastern Oregon to lead to something like this, or perhaps how a whole variety of political phenomena in Oregon and the West at large could be at least related to environmental conditions that are rapidly departing from the historical records of the sedentary agricultural period in the entire goddamn region

no no, it's all just a product of national-level political dynamics based on universal philosophical disagreements (which you are obviously right about), guys! Even though nowhere else in the country is doing this, we only see national-level partisan dynamics affecting this situation, there couldn't possibly be anything to understand here on a subnational scale.

I'm pretty sure this is completely unrelated to a referendum deciding whether counties stay in one state or another.

It is. I don't see how its related at all.

Don't worry, I didn't think you would

[Salus Maior]

I'm pretty sure this is completely unrelated to a referendum deciding whether counties stay in one state or another.

Well, naturally you don't; you've so totally and pompously divorced your squealing about the philosophical principle of self-determination from the specific reality of the case as to even be interested in understanding why *these* particular counties are doing this, in understanding what's going on in Eastern Oregon to lead to something like this, or perhaps how a whole variety of political phenomena in Oregon and the West at large could be at least related to environmental conditions that are rapidly departing from the historical records of the sedentary agricultural period in the entire goddamn region

Probably because the reasoning doesn't matter. Why should it?

The root of the issue is that the people of these counties are severely dissatisfied with their state government and they don't believe they are represented fairly. They believe they would be better represented by Idaho, and so want to switch state governments and have expressed this in a legal referendum which expresses this desire democratically.

Complaining about the reasoning behind their dissatisfaction isn't actually going to help anything. What do you suggest we should do in light of this? Ignore the majorities in multiple counties and keep the status quo? That's not going to do anything except make the status quo even more disagreeable and make it appear that democratic solutions aren't possible to solve problems. And when democratic solutions aren't respected, things go in a worse direction.

I think the only pomposity present here are your assumptions.

[San Lumen]

Well, naturally you don't; you've so totally and pompously divorced your squealing about the philosophical principle of self-determination from the specific reality of the case as to even be interested in understanding why *these* particular counties are doing this, in understanding what's going on in Eastern Oregon to lead to something like this, or perhaps how a whole variety of political phenomena in Oregon and the West at large could be at least related to environmental conditions that are rapidly departing from the historical records of the sedentary agricultural period in the entire goddamn region

Probably because the reasoning doesn't matter. Why should it?

The root of the issue is that the people of these counties are severely dissatisfied with their state government and they don't believe they are represented fairly. They believe they would be better represented by Idaho, and so want to switch state governments and have expressed this in a legal referendum which expresses this desire democratically.

Complaining about the reasoning behind their dissatisfaction isn't actually going to help anything. What do you suggest we should do in light of this? Ignore the majorities in multiple counties and keep the status quo? That's not going to do anything except make the status quo even more disagreeable and make it appear that democratic solutions aren't possible to solve problems. And when democratic solutions aren't respected, things go in a worse direction.

I think the only pomposity present here are your assumptions.

Their dissatisfaction is we don’t get more representation then our population allows and our candidates for statewide office don’t get the most votes.

Breaking news that’s how a republic works.

Temper tantrums shouldn’t be indulged.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Probably because the reasoning doesn't matter. Why should it?

The root of the issue is that the people of these counties are severely dissatisfied with their state government and they don't believe they are represented fairly. They believe they would be better represented by Idaho, and so want to switch state governments and have expressed this in a legal referendum which expresses this desire democratically.

Complaining about the reasoning behind their dissatisfaction isn't actually going to help anything. What do you suggest we should do in light of this? Ignore the majorities in multiple counties and keep the status quo? That's not going to do anything except make the status quo even more disagreeable and make it appear that democratic solutions aren't possible to solve problems. And when democratic solutions aren't respected, things go in a worse direction.

I think the only pomposity present here are your assumptions.

Their dissatisfaction is we don’t get more representation then our population allows and our candidates for statewide office don’t get the most votes.

Breaking news that’s how a republic works.

Temper tantrums shouldn’t be indulged.

Normally, I'd point out just how far out of field your laughable assumption is, but it's already been done by several other posters on here already to the point of Ad nauseam so why even bother.

Seriously

[Borderlands of Rojava]

You'd know if you've been reading what I've been writing.

Idaho and Oregon can make compromises for the counties in question. For example, within the seceding counties there can be exemptions for weed growers to operate and continue their business. Even if they're not allowed to operate within the entirety of Idaho.

Think of it in the same way "dry counties" operate. You can't sell alcohol in some counties, even if it's legal in the whole state. Except in this case weed growing and selling would be legal in some counties and not in others.

I doubt Idaho ever agrees to that. Heres a novel idea how about they accept they live in a democracy and respect the outcome of elections and they means they have less representation and less likely to see the candidates they want get elected to statewide office.

Lumen how are they not respecting democracy by voting to leave a state? That makes zero sense. They democratically voted "we don't wanna be part of Oregon anymore" and that's "not respecting democracy?" What next? Laying flowers at the graves of American soldiers is anti American?

[Paddy O Fernature]

I doubt Idaho ever agrees to that. Heres a novel idea how about they accept they live in a democracy and respect the outcome of elections and they means they have less representation and less likely to see the candidates they want get elected to statewide office.

Lumen how are they not respecting democracy by voting to leave a state? That makes zero sense. They democratically voted "we don't wanna be part of Oregon anymore" and that's "not respecting democracy?" What next? Laying flowers at the graves of American soldiers is anti American?

Honestly, the mental gymnastic needed to make that argument with a straight face is truly mind blowing.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Lumen how are they not respecting democracy by voting to leave a state? That makes zero sense.

If I hold a referendum in which I am the sole voter and vote to make murder legal, that doesn't mean I then have a democratic mandate to start killing people.

Democracy should strive to include, as far as it is possible to do so, all the stakeholders in the issue at hand. And the question of which state a particular plot of land is a part of has more stakeholders than merely the residents of that plot of land.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Lumen how are they not respecting democracy by voting to leave a state? That makes zero sense.

If I hold a referendum in which I am the sole voter and vote to make murder legal, that doesn't mean I then have a democratic mandate to start killing people.

Democracy should strive to include, as far as it is possible to do so, all the stakeholders in the issue at hand. And the question of which state a particular plot of land is a part of has more stakeholders than merely the residents of that plot of land.

As far as im concerned, if the people in these counties voted to leave, it isnt "anti democracy," even if more people should be asked for their opinion. It would be anti democracy if they DIDNT want to leave and the government said "to bad."