Live data from Hacker News

Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

upi.com

441–450 of 673 posts

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#441
post #35

Given the article's mention of Rural vs Urban I lean towards the belief that this is driven by a sense of both conservative values in government and probably a lack of understanding in how the government of the people serves the people. More precisely how taxes and math work. The GAO and similar offices should do a better job of preparing reports on where every collected tax dollar is being spent; both in the physica…

It’s simply that lower childhood IQ at age 5 is an indicator of conservatism in adults. One might interpret this as people who find it hard to understand the world are often easier to fool into thinking their problems are because of someone else, or to scare into believing that what they do have is at risk from “others”.

Remember, there are conservatives who are smarter than you.

(And this goes the other way, for conservatives.) It's just something to keep in mind whenever you feel like making dumb generalizations about large groups.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#442
post #387
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rural is defined in USA here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rur...

So that basically says that essentially no one in the state of MA is rural and that almost no one in the state of CA is rural. Which probably doesn't correspond to how average people think about rural vs. urban. So the fact that I can look off my back deck and see nothing but trees is a reasonable urban environment.

> and that almost no one in the state of CA is rural

Kinda crazy to see the entire I-5 length between San Francisco and Los Angeles classified as "metro". Perhaps the metric they're using doesn't work so well when counties (which is what they classify) are so large, and they primarily care that some city of over 50k people exists in it "somewhere". Some of those counties appear to be as large as or larger than some of the smaller states in the Northeast.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#443
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re being downvoted, but living in Oregon I don’t really see the problem. I’m not really attached to borders and I’m trying to understand why other people are. It is an aspect of political science I’d like to know more about if people have useful sources.

It's pretty messy and would need to have some constitutional support drawn up. E.g. you probably wouldn't do it by county per se, it might be better to make it work by congressional district.

County borders make much more sense. Congressional district boundaries change much more often. They also mean nothing to people in terms of their geographic identity. No one says, "Oh yeah, I live over in the 13th District."

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sets a bad precedent. Any county can just vote to break off into another state due to political reasons or to form their own state? Either one party will use that to their advantage and disallow the other party from doing the same, or every state will devolve into fragments. Why stop at counties? Why can't zip codes choose the grouping that best represents them too?

> Any county can just vote to break off into another state due to political reasons or to form their own state? While your question is still an interesting thought experiment, it is worth noting that OP was referring to counties moving between two existing states, not counties seceding a former a _new_ state, which would certainly have different ramifications.

It's a natural next step. It's hardly a slippery slope argumentative fallacy to suggest the precedent would extend to a logical next step.

And are counties only allowed to do it if they are contiguous with their desired state?

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#445
post #35

Given the article's mention of Rural vs Urban I lean towards the belief that this is driven by a sense of both conservative values in government and probably a lack of understanding in how the government of the people serves the people. More precisely how taxes and math work. The GAO and similar offices should do a better job of preparing reports on where every collected tax dollar is being spent; both in the physica…

I would love to see the data, but from the data I have seen, the data conflict with the popular (populist) narrative. A lot of people in America seem to believe that the hardworking "real Americans" in the middle of the country are subsidizing the poorly-run coastal liberal enclaves. In reality, the money almost always flows in the other direction; taxpayers in cities are subsidizing the rural-dwellers. This has noth…

> A lot of people in America seem to believe that the hardworking "real Americans" in the middle of the country are subsidizing the poorly-run coastal liberal enclaves. In reality, the money almost always flows in the other direction; taxpayers in cities are subsidizing the rural-dwellers. This has nothing to do with work ethic, it's just a hard fact that a lot of costs scale with square miles instead of with people (roads, emergency services), and that lower cost of living in the country leads to lower incomes which lead to lower tax revenue.

You've made up this narrative of what 'the other side' thinks.

I'll recast it for you.

* start narrative *

A lot of people in america seem to believe that their wages have stagnated while witnessing the wages of those living on the coast, who often disagree politically with them, rise stratospherically. To them it seems like the coastal elites do nothing, while they are quite literally breaking their backs to earn a paltry wage, that they then owe to the very coastal elites they feel are doing nothing.

It seems like they take the money, pay it in taxes, subsidize us and tell us we should grovel to them for it, while simultaneously opposing policies we feel would reduce the dependence. For example, they tell us we can't water our farms because of 'global warming', and instead should rely on their benevolence. But we don't want that benevolence.

* end narrative *

When you put it that way, you realize the 'hardworking real Americans' actually have a lot in common with far-left labor activists. And you'd be right. It would behoove everyone to have more compassion and charity towards their countrymen.

Anyway, there is a drastic shift in the Republican party that has gone completely unnoticed. Trump, everything from his personality to his tactics are more reminiscent of the pre-neo-liberal democrat party establishment than anything else. There is a real warming up of the republican base to social programs, government spending, and unions, so long as those institutions prioritize what they believe to be important issues. This is a far cry from the anti-spending, anti-union GOP of old.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see the data, but from the data I have seen, the data conflict with the popular (populist) narrative. A lot of people in America seem to believe that the hardworking "real Americans" in the middle of the country are subsidizing the poorly-run coastal liberal enclaves. In reality, the money almost always flows in the other direction; taxpayers in cities are subsidizing the rural-dwellers. This has noth…

Part of this has to do with how we've been able to drive down agricultural costs by means of automation over the last century which has driven a move away from family farms to larger corporate farms. In 1900, just under 40 percent of the total US population lived on farms, and 60 percent lived in rural areas. Today, the respective figures are only about 1 percent and 20 percent.[1] Sure the coasts are creating more e…

[dead]

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a predominantly right-leaning area and know a lot of people who are against universal healthcare. I've talked with a lot of them about it, and every single person would be in favor of it if there was a magical guarantee the money would actually be spent properly and not corruptly misallocated. But the track record is so poor, and there is such little transparency, that they have no trust whatsoever. I can h…

> But the track record is so poor, and there is such little transparency, that they have no trust whatsoever. The track record of... Medicare? It's one of the most popular programs in government! What you've done is just aborb spin. It's true that these people don't trust "The Government" to provide health care, because their thought leaders (and peers like you) keep telling them that. But then they go and enroll in…

There is no alternative to Medicare given the risk profile for the elderly. It has high approval because there is no other option.

It is also not universally accepted- this is only anecdotal, of course, but I had a doctor tell me he didnt accept it because the rates for some procedures worked out to be below the state's hourly minimum wage.

Perhaps a better example would be the VA- government run hospitals and coverage that is perenially in the news for some new corruption or incompetence scandal, and a very very hit or miss reputation.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've talked to a lot of these people in passing and they honestly believe Oregon is a red state but is being cheated by Portland. They always point to land area thats red as proof.

and your counter argument is?

I have none because you can't argue with them.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#449
post #28

One of the things I periodically mentally noodle with is, what would the world look like if it was a lot easier for units to choose what larger units they would aggregate into? Like, cities choosing a county, counties choosing a state, states choosing their country, etc. I originally was noodling with this in the context of a space civilization, where there is no equivalent of "solid ground", everything's always movi…

I like your train of thought here, it's a good "noodle". If I might add some more to the noodling... :)

I see an interesting alignment between the trends we are seeing in technology and politics. Actually, my senior thesis back in college (2003) was that the politics of information technology are disruptive to organizations. Not necessarily disruptive in a "sided" sense, in that "disruption" can be considered good, or bad, healthy or damaging, or both.

There is a trend we see in information system/technology architectures towards "decentralized" and/or "federated" solutions. For example - "service mesh" [1] or "data mesh" [2], both higher level stack abstractions that came from lower level mesh networking concepts. And we even see "mesh" concepts in the form of knowledge graphs, social networks, peer-to-peer, etc.

If you read up on this you will often see the word "federated" and it is so interesting that federation is both something we apply to technology/systems as well as political. I am quite sure that it is part of the key to what you are thinking about. There's a reason that countries have been referred to as "federations", why we call it the U.S. "federal" government, etc. I believe, among other things, it largely revolves around how one implements governance and ensures a working "system" in terms of standardization/policy.

There is a desire to be autonomous yet interoperable, and this applies as much to "human" systems as well as purely technological systems. There is a link, after all, between how humans implement systems per Conway's Law [3] - organization's systems often are designed to mirror their communication structure.

Institutions are just one kind of organizational unit, and there too you come across all kinds of interesting issues that have perhaps, barely been explored - one such example is "institutional trust" [4].

In summary, my own latest "noodling" on this area is that actually, our technological and political systems are still very much evolving. When you take into context the possibility that it is truly becoming possible within, how about we say, the next 100 years - that humanity my be able to truly exist off the Earth, in space, for longer periods of time - then that is going to open up a whole world of questions about these very systems which we think we have completely figured out.

If there is one constant I think we can count on, it is probably change - but, ultimately survival (a key element of which is adaptability) will probably be the force that drives whatever the next 100 years look like - and that could be both good or bad overall for the development of new organizational structures.

Personally, I feel that all of this is interwoven together in quite an interesting way and all related, as information systems are the backbones of organizations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_mesh

[2] https://martinfowler.com/articles/data-monolith-to-mesh.html

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_trust_(social_sc...

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they are the majority?

Rule of law, not majority. It may look that way should “one side” or the other control an official political body, but at least for now, we still abide election laws insuring the “rule of law” bit.

I don’t see how it runs contrary to the rule of law. Im not aware of any legal obstructions that couldn’t be overcome, especially if everyone involved wanted it to succeed.
Post reply on HN