7 ms·

Doesn't Eastern Washington also have a similar demographic? Maybe combine them too.

by Tempest1981 5y ago

standardUser 5y ago
Here is a proposal from greateridaho.org: https://www.greateridaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Greater-Idaho-Proposal-r21.pdf https://www.greateridaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Grea... It includes chunks of OR and CA but not WA for some reason. It may be explained in the doc.
- philwelch 5y ago
  It’s explained in their FAQ: > Idahoans are very concerned about keeping their state as conservative as possible. They had 2.46 conservative votes per liberal vote in the 2016 presidential election, but eastern Washington only had 1.43. > Moreover, eastern Washington has a population of 1.6 million in 2017, as compared to Idaho’s population of 1.7 million. Idahoans don’t want to be outvoted by others in their own state, so they’re not likely to want to include such a large population into their own state. If Republican-voting southern Washington state is included, that’s an additional 0.8 million. > When we created the modern Greater Idaho proposal in 2019, we searched diligently for any possible combination of Washington State counties that would be both as prosperous and as conservative as Idaho. We only find this group of three counties: Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin counties. We are including these counties in our proposal. > Here is a plan for rural WA liberty that is more likely to get approvals than joining Idaho is: https://redstatesecession.org/washington-state-should-become-one-state-consisting-of-two-totally-independent-districts https://redstatesecession.org/washington-state-should-become... https://www.greateridaho.org/faq/ https://www.greateridaho.org/faq/
  - yongjik 5y ago
    Geez, they aren't even hiding that they're gerrymandering for a jumbo Republican state (with the added "benefit" that the remaining OR and CA will become even more Democrat). Exactly what the US needs in 2021. I'm half amused and half horrified.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      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 sincerely think this is exactly what the US needs: a civil agreement that you people can live over there under the laws that you prefer, while we can live here under the laws that we prefer, and that we coexist as a federation of states instead of just fighting to impose a single national politics on everyone.
      - yongjik 5y ago
        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.)
        philwelch 5y ago
        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.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Isn't it sad that they directly state they want to do this for party reasons? Like, "we only want people who vote for that party in our state". As someone from a country that isn't basically a dual one-party state, it rubs me off as very weird and very anti-freedom, liberty, logic, etc.
    - smaryjerry 5y ago
      It actually makes a lot of sense because their issues are mainly with the party that is currently in charge and lately almost every vote in Congress on anything substantive like trillions in stimulus has been along party lines.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      I don’t see it as sad at all. There’s a certain philosophy of government and system of laws that most residents of Idaho and eastern Oregon would prefer to live under. There is a different and fundamentally incompatible philosophy of government and system of laws that most residents of the Portland metropolitan area would prefer to live under. If the goal of a democracy is to enable the largest number of people to live under the laws and philosophy of government they prefer, this is a move in the right direction. The only alternative is for two increasingly polarized parties to try and impose their preferences on the other half of the country. That rubs me as very weird and anti-freedom compared to just embracing federalism.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        But they aren't talking about a philosophy of government and system of laws, they're talking about a party. I wonder how people like that function. Like, they chose a party, and automatically agree and favour everything that party says? That's weird. If not, like if you only believe in 2-3 of their core things, but disagree with the rest, why do you still talk about party affiliation? What happens when you have a conflicting opinion with the party? Especially considering the party in question is blatantly anti-science. Take climate change for instance. There are young Republicans that aren't braindead or brainwashed enough to think it's a sham and want it taken seriously, but they're still stuck only with the Republican party as a choice because the the main things they believe in match only with them. And then have to support the party which proudly says that climate change means no more burgers, so it's obviously stupid and wrong and God wouldn't have wanted it! The American two-party system is fundamentally broken and fucked up. Those people need more reforms and less religious bullshit. > The only alternative is for two increasingly polarized parties to try and impose their preferences on the other half of the country. That rubs me as very weird and anti-freedom compared to just embracing federalism. Or, hear me out... compromise? Otherwise you'd have half the country living in a backwards, religious law-based, science denying country with lots of guns, high teen pregnancies and child abandonment and mistreatment. I don't think anyone wins besides some politicians who are too stupid to function but will get automatically elected because they happen to have the right party affiliation. Note: Not American, i don't have a horse in this race.
hirundo 5y ago
Eastern California too, particularly North Eastern. If we gerrymander states by equal numbers of red and blue residents there would be vast rural red states surrounding small blue sub/urban enclaves.
- sdenton4 5y ago
  And the red states will pay 'out of state' prices for higher quality universities in the blue areas, leading to even greater segregation along educational lines. (Actually, this is probably already happening...)
Ccecil 5y ago
I believe there is a separate proposal somewhere being thrown around where Eastern Washington, North Idaho and Western Montana become a state...which really makes sense politically and commercially. Source: I have lived in North Idaho most of my life...this is not a new proposal :)
kyleblarson 5y ago
You mean the demographic that doesn't support nightly riots in major US cities like Portland? That's a pretty big demographic.

Doesn't Eastern Washington also have a similar demographic? Maybe combine them too.

Here is a proposal from greateridaho.org: https://www.greateridaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Greater-Idaho-Proposal-r21.pdf https://www.greateridaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Grea... It includes chunks of OR and CA but not WA for some reason. It may be explained in the doc.

philwelch 5y ago
It’s explained in their FAQ: > Idahoans are very concerned about keeping their state as conservative as possible. They had 2.46 conservative votes per liberal vote in the 2016 presidential election, but eastern Washington only had 1.43. > Moreover, eastern Washington has a population of 1.6 million in 2017, as compared to Idaho’s population of 1.7 million. Idahoans don’t want to be outvoted by others in their own state, so they’re not likely to want to include such a large population into their own state. If Republican-voting southern Washington state is included, that’s an additional 0.8 million. > When we created the modern Greater Idaho proposal in 2019, we searched diligently for any possible combination of Washington State counties that would be both as prosperous and as conservative as Idaho. We only find this group of three counties: Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin counties. We are including these counties in our proposal. > Here is a plan for rural WA liberty that is more likely to get approvals than joining Idaho is: https://redstatesecession.org/washington-state-should-become-one-state-consisting-of-two-totally-independent-districts https://redstatesecession.org/washington-state-should-become... https://www.greateridaho.org/faq/ https://www.greateridaho.org/faq/
- yongjik 5y ago
  Geez, they aren't even hiding that they're gerrymandering for a jumbo Republican state (with the added "benefit" that the remaining OR and CA will become even more Democrat). Exactly what the US needs in 2021. I'm half amused and half horrified.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    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 sincerely think this is exactly what the US needs: a civil agreement that you people can live over there under the laws that you prefer, while we can live here under the laws that we prefer, and that we coexist as a federation of states instead of just fighting to impose a single national politics on everyone.
    - yongjik 5y ago
      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.)
      - philwelch 5y ago
        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.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Isn't it sad that they directly state they want to do this for party reasons? Like, "we only want people who vote for that party in our state". As someone from a country that isn't basically a dual one-party state, it rubs me off as very weird and very anti-freedom, liberty, logic, etc.
  - smaryjerry 5y ago
    It actually makes a lot of sense because their issues are mainly with the party that is currently in charge and lately almost every vote in Congress on anything substantive like trillions in stimulus has been along party lines.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    I don’t see it as sad at all. There’s a certain philosophy of government and system of laws that most residents of Idaho and eastern Oregon would prefer to live under. There is a different and fundamentally incompatible philosophy of government and system of laws that most residents of the Portland metropolitan area would prefer to live under. If the goal of a democracy is to enable the largest number of people to live under the laws and philosophy of government they prefer, this is a move in the right direction. The only alternative is for two increasingly polarized parties to try and impose their preferences on the other half of the country. That rubs me as very weird and anti-freedom compared to just embracing federalism.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      But they aren't talking about a philosophy of government and system of laws, they're talking about a party. I wonder how people like that function. Like, they chose a party, and automatically agree and favour everything that party says? That's weird. If not, like if you only believe in 2-3 of their core things, but disagree with the rest, why do you still talk about party affiliation? What happens when you have a conflicting opinion with the party? Especially considering the party in question is blatantly anti-science. Take climate change for instance. There are young Republicans that aren't braindead or brainwashed enough to think it's a sham and want it taken seriously, but they're still stuck only with the Republican party as a choice because the the main things they believe in match only with them. And then have to support the party which proudly says that climate change means no more burgers, so it's obviously stupid and wrong and God wouldn't have wanted it! The American two-party system is fundamentally broken and fucked up. Those people need more reforms and less religious bullshit. > The only alternative is for two increasingly polarized parties to try and impose their preferences on the other half of the country. That rubs me as very weird and anti-freedom compared to just embracing federalism. Or, hear me out... compromise? Otherwise you'd have half the country living in a backwards, religious law-based, science denying country with lots of guns, high teen pregnancies and child abandonment and mistreatment. I don't think anyone wins besides some politicians who are too stupid to function but will get automatically elected because they happen to have the right party affiliation. Note: Not American, i don't have a horse in this race.

hirundo 5y ago

Eastern California too, particularly North Eastern. If we gerrymander states by equal numbers of red and blue residents there would be vast rural red states surrounding small blue sub/urban enclaves.

sdenton4 5y ago
And the red states will pay 'out of state' prices for higher quality universities in the blue areas, leading to even greater segregation along educational lines. (Actually, this is probably already happening...)

Ccecil 5y ago

I believe there is a separate proposal somewhere being thrown around where Eastern Washington, North Idaho and Western Montana become a state...which really makes sense politically and commercially. Source: I have lived in North Idaho most of my life...this is not a new proposal :)

kyleblarson 5y ago

You mean the demographic that doesn't support nightly riots in major US cities like Portland? That's a pretty big demographic.