Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

upi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 673 posts

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

#481

Post by halostatue »

adventured wrote: post #451
URSpider94 wrote: post #85

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…

> 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. By far the most heavily subsidized, most expensive, poorest and least educated people in the United States are the poor living in urban zones. It's not even remotely a close comparison in terms of numbers. You can see it in the crime statistics, you c…

[citation required]

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

#482

Post by throwaway0a5e »

ralusek wrote: post #476
catgary wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would Oregon necessarily be against this? This seems like a great way to (a) get rid of nut jobs from the state legislature, and (b) get rid of a bunch of counties that sinkholes (financially speaking).

You are of the opinion that the "nut jobs" in Oregon are not currently residing in Portland, attempting to burn down federal courthouses for hundreds of days at a time?

Or he just knows what this audience would prefer to hear.

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

#483

Post by maxerickson »

nickff wrote: post #480
rootusrootus wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when you get down to the last county and they also want to join another state?

If there were a one-county state, it would benefit from so much graft that they'd never join anyone else. Imagine having two senators, one congressman, and three electoral votes, all in one county! Every presidential candidate would stop there and promise them the moon!

Rhode Island is close enough and mostly doesn't get paid much attention.

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

#484

Post by halostatue »

kemiller wrote: post #455
URSpider94 wrote: post #85

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…

This particular movement, to its credit, seems to acknowledge this flow of money. It's about morality and control for them.

I think it’s about something that they aren’t talking about openly.

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

#485

Post by throwaway0a5e »

mattste wrote: post #422
catgary wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would Oregon necessarily be against this? This seems like a great way to (a) get rid of nut jobs from the state legislature, and (b) get rid of a bunch of counties that sinkholes (financially speaking).

Considering that the impacted region has a lot of forestry, there are environmental concerns with how they will protect the land in their new state's regulatory system.

So it's about maintaining jurisdiction/control?

Wouldn't Idaho be capable of regulating that stuff?

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

#486

Post by [deleted] »

Thrymr wrote: post #378
Ericson2314 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, it doesn't matter what state the representative is associated with, and baring rounding errors the number of representatives would stay roughly the same? The more worrisome effect is on the electoral college and the senate, but I think tying this to DC statehood would get rid of that.

> it doesn't matter what state the representative is associated with, and baring rounding errors the number of representatives would stay roughly the same? The [Republican] Idaho legislature would get to gerrymand the districts instead of the [Democratic] Oregon legislature.

[deleted]

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

#487

Post by HillRat »

kemiller wrote: post #455
URSpider94 wrote: post #85

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…

This particular movement, to its credit, seems to acknowledge this flow of money. It's about morality and control for them.

Oh, they talk a lot about the financial benefits — lower income taxes, looser land regulations — it’s just that the personal costs of a lower minimum wage, increased sales taxes, and less educational funding from the state aren’t going to fall on the people who are driving this.

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

#488

Post by matchbok »

adventured wrote: post #451
URSpider94 wrote: post #85

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…

> 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. By far the most heavily subsidized, most expensive, poorest and least educated people in the United States are the poor living in urban zones. It's not even remotely a close comparison in terms of numbers. You can see it in the crime statistics, you c…

Even the worst parts of LA are miles ahead of the poor rural suburbs. There is just more visibility in LA due to the concentration of people.

In reality, the facts don't back up anything you said. :/

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

#489

Post by throwaway0a5e »

DFHippie wrote: post #462
srswtf123 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If every state is gerrymandered beyond all sanity, are any of our elections valid?

Also, not all states are equally gerrymandered. Vermont and Wyoming each have a single representative, so they have no electoral boundaries to manipulate. And California uses a non-partisan electoral commission to adjust electoral boundaries. In states where redistricting is still a partisan process it is not all equally shameless.

States are typically gerrymandered on the state representation (state legislature) level as well as with federal congressional districts.

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

#490

Post by PeterisP »

iammisc wrote: post #413
madengr wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?" The US Bill of Rights.

You're being downvoted, but you're correct. Values espoused by the founding documents of the current United States government are also properly called American, even if the majority of americans disagree. There's two possible meanings here that is causing people confusion.

One might argue that technically (akshually?) the Bill of Rights goes against the founding documents of USA, amending them a few years later with values that were not in the original constitution to satisfy anti-federalists criticising the initial design (and its values).
Post reply on HN