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

611–620 of 673 posts

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

#611

Post by barbacoa »

halostatue wrote: post #533
fyijbxmuyidudm wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegals is, of course, a shorthand for illegal alien. The shorthand was created because of the regularity of having to describe such an individual. In what way could someone describe the reality of "a person who has violated international border agreements and is residing in a country in violation of the laws of that country" that you would not consider dehumanizing?

People can’t be illegal. They can be in the country without proper documentation. The _correct_ and _humane_ term is “undocumented”.

This is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist.

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

#612

Post by ineptech »

catgary wrote: post #609
ineptech wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would Oregon necessarily be against this? Yes, Western/urban/blue Oregon is against this. I don't think there's a simple self-interest-based reason like "we would lose X if they left," but it is considered an unserious idea, would involve large-but-not-well-understood costs, and there's no reason to do it.

But what would the cost be to those western Oregonians? I just feel like in their position I’d be tempted to say “don’t let the door hit you on your way out.”

I just meant the general bureaucratic cost of effecting such a change, but I probably shouldn't have mentioned cost as I don't think it's a big factor in the general opposition to the idea. You're right that it wouldn't cost any of us much of anything directly, and some western Oregonians probably do feel that way, especially about Malheur Co, which is more or less synonymous with nationalist terrorism.

But I would guess a more common opinion is opposed, and I think it's more that it's not taken very seriously due to the lack precedent and the political impossibility than that it's fiercely opposed.

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

#614

Post by belatw »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #515
bobthepanda wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s also the question of whether or not Idaho would actually want to take them.

Could Idaho afford to incorporate that much more rural land without cities to increase its tax base? They purposely avoid even Bend because that’s where Oregon starts getting liberal.

That’s why we have net-donor states like California, to subsidize poor right-ring net-taker states like Idaho.

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

#615

Post by dragonwriter »

montagg wrote: post #552
Spooky23 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who are into this sort of thing are typically not so good at analysis. Every few years some Republican assemblyman proposes splitting “downstate” NY from “upstate”. (itself a matter of debate in some quarters) It gets some play with the AM radio crowd, than someone shows the guy the math, and they go back to some other issue.

One day, the math person isn't going to convince them otherwise.

Sure, and then the upstate counties vote to secede, and the state legislature, dominated by the population center they are trying to secede from says no, and under the Constitution that’s explicitly, unambiguously the ball game, even if you have a friendly federal Congress that would have been willing to approve it.

Barring ratification of a federal Constitutional Amendment stripping the requirement for states to approve any erection of new states using all or part of the land of an existing state, none of these “secession from a state to form a new state or join an adjacent state motivated mainly by partisan interests hostile to the dominant parry of the state being seceded from” moves is ever going to go anywhere.

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

#616

Post by Fezzik »

dragonwriter wrote: post #572
bobthepanda wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s also the question of whether or not Idaho would actually want to take them.

> There’s also the question of whether or not Idaho would actually want to take them. There’s also the question of whether Congress and Oregon would want to support the change, both of which, in addition to the consent of Idaho’s legislature, are required under Article IV Sec. 3 of the US Constitution before a new state can be formed of the existing state of Idaho and parts of the existing state of Oregon.

From a purely fiscal perspective Oregon should be happy to rid itself of these counties (and Idaho stupid for accepting them) - with the exception of Jackson and (maybe) Josephine counties all of these regions are financial dead-weights that cost far more tax dollars to maintain than they generate. I currently work in Grant, Harney, and Deschutes counties and previously worked in Lake and Klamath Counties… and these are beautiful areas populated with wonderful people (and a lot of meth) and having them annexed from Oregon would be depressing… but as someone who would remain in Oregon with the changed borders I am all for it. That said, this whole initiative is going nowhere. It’s like the South’s last breath in fighting against the Unionization of the States, a losing battle.

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

#617

Post by philwelch »

yongjik wrote: post #340
philwelch wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gerrymandering has to do with influencing representation in the US Congress. I think this has more to do with state government, particularly the ability for more people to live under the type of state government they would prefer. Portlanders would probably prefer an even more liberal state government than Oregon already has while eastern Oregonians evidently prefer the Idaho state government to their own. I sincerel…

I think "you live under your laws, we live under our laws" is a cop-out that's never going to work as intended. 33% of Idaho voted for Biden in 2020. Unless you're OK with disenfranchising 1/3 of voters, you're not going to have your ideal government. (Of course they same can be said for places like CA - all the more reason why states shouldn't be divided over partisan lines.)

Is it better for states to be divided closer to 55-45 and “disenfranchise” closer to half of the people? Or perhaps we compromise and “disenfranchise” everyone?

Majority rule is always an exercise in the minority not getting their way. Decentralization—i.e. federalism—reduces the size of the minority that isn’t getting their way. If politics is completely national, maybe 49% of the people will be unhappy. If that 49% includes 66% of Idahoans, and you let the people of Idaho decide most issues at the state level, they can be happy and so can the Californians because there’s no need for Idaho and California to live under the same laws.

Besides, someone living in Idaho and voting for Biden may prefer Biden as President but still prefer the state laws of Idaho. And if he doesn’t, moving states is easier than changing the President.

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

#618

Post by refurb »

marricks wrote: post #604
refurb wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the whole legislature doesn't get big progressives projects done as much as they might otherwise. But that’s how it’s supposed to work ? If only a portion of your electorate supports progressive projects then it’s not supposed to be easy to pass them. Your statement is really bizarre.

Let me give an example, say you you have 61% of the senators so you have a supermajority and can anything you want passed. Ok that's fine. Well says there's a quorum where 70% of senators must be present for a vote. The very minority party now can just leave and stop anything from happening. That's effectively what the republican did. You can call it a fair democracy because it's "following the rules" but it's pretty…

But that’s the point.

People talk about Congressional deadlock, but that’s by design. It’s not supposed to be easy to pass laws unless there is strong agreement.

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

#619

Post by bobthepanda »

shkkmo wrote: post #592
rufus_foreman wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the governor of Idaho is down with it: In an interview with Fox News, Idaho Gov. Brad Little said he understands why some rural Oregonians want to redraw the borders. "They’re looking at Idaho fondly because of our regulatory atmosphere, our values, Little told Fox News. What they’re interested in is they would like to have a little more autonomy, a little more control, a little more freedom and I can und…

That sounds like the govenor understands their point of view, not that he is willing to take on the massive legal and political battle that would ensue if this moved forwards.

Not to mention, it's not really the governor's call to make. It'd have to make it through the Idaho legislature first, and I get the feeling they'd be less keen, particularly once numbers and figures start getting talked about. The proposed counties to secede, for example, don't have a great connection to Idaho proper that stays in-state.

Also, Boise is farther from these counties than Salem, so it's not especially clear that representation would be significantly better.

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

#620

Post by aww_dang »

vineyardmike wrote: post #381
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…

I drove through a few of the counties (eg. baker) mentioned in the article to visit a dog breeder, and the breeder had (nearly) her own highway exit. Complete with 2 overpasses. Must cost millions to build and maintain. Her house was the only one visible for as far as you could see from that exit. All i could think about was how much better her life was for that exit and how all her total tax income forever could nev…

This appears to be a variation of the "who would build the roads" argument.
Post reply on HN