5 ms·

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 count

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).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nxc18 5y ago
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.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  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.
  - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
    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."
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      A properly drawn congressional boundary should have a predictable number of citizens, however. Arbitrarily choosing county boundaries (and why county boundaries instead of some other method?) would probably upset the balance of population and require reallocation of representatives. Or maybe the price of seceding from your state is that you don't get to take the representation with you and therefore must wait until the next census to clear it up.
      - catgary 5y ago
        I mean, stuff like school board and police departments are often organized by county, no?
bpodgursky 5y ago
Honestly I see this failing in Oregon not because anyone is particularly against it, but because the Republicans in the state legislature have no power and the issue would never be brought to the floor.
- Balgair 5y ago
  True. But for the sake of argument, say they somehow can. What then? Would they actually go through with it? I suppose it goes to their own personal careers. Would they have a better chance of personal success in the new Idaho legislatures or in the current Oregon one? Seeing that the population of Oregon is 4.2M and the new Idaho would be relatively unchanged at 1.7M (these counties combine to 0.06M people), I'd suppose they would want to stay with Oregon as the prestige and career flexibility would be greater in a more populous and richer state. Whatever the new districts of new Idaho would be, these new-comers would still be a small fraction of the legislature. The only way I can see that they would have better careers in new Idaho would be in national politics. And then they have to fight amongst each other and the old Idaho politicians, all of whom would be jealous at the attention these new-comers would have. Unless one of them is especially gifted/lucky, I'm not seeing that as a high likelihood.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    > I'd suppose they would want to stay with Oregon as the prestige and career flexibility would be greater in a more populous and richer state I don't think this really tracks. Being a minority state legislator sucks; you're basically completely ignored. I think most politicians would much rather be in the majority party in a smaller state than a minority in a larger state.
mattste 5y ago
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.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  So it's about maintaining jurisdiction/control? Wouldn't Idaho be capable of regulating that stuff?
- csomar 5y ago
  Most of these forests are owned by the federal government. Oregon owns less than half of its land.
ineptech 5y ago
> 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.
- catgary 5y ago
  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.”
  - ineptech 5y ago
    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.
ralusek 5y ago
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?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Or he just knows what this audience would prefer to hear.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  The [to-be-]seceding counties are strongly in opposition to the currently governing policies in Oregon, so it's quite expected that they (i.e. Oregon government and the petitioners) perceive each other as "nut jobs".
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Fox News reports the same dumpster fire each night (often just reusing video footage each day), I’m not sure how serious they are if they are aiming to burn down the courthouse. Yes, dumpster fires are illegal and those starting them should be punished, but it’s a stretch to say they are trying to burn down the courthouse.
  - ralusek 5y ago
    I don't watch Fox News, wouldn't know. But you're under the impression that the illiberal black bloc collectives do not exist in any serious capacity in Portland?
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      They do exist, but their numbers and impact is overblown for propaganda reasons on the right.
      - ralusek 5y ago
        Numbers being overblown? The protests from the left which have dominated the public consciousness have been motivated around the idea that unarmed black people are being killed en masse by the police, a fate literally less likely to happen than a person being struck by lightning. Please explain to me how you determine what exactly constitutes numbers being overblown for propaganda purposes.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nxc18 5y ago

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.

rootusrootus 5y ago
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.
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  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."
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    A properly drawn congressional boundary should have a predictable number of citizens, however. Arbitrarily choosing county boundaries (and why county boundaries instead of some other method?) would probably upset the balance of population and require reallocation of representatives. Or maybe the price of seceding from your state is that you don't get to take the representation with you and therefore must wait until the next census to clear it up.
    - catgary 5y ago
      I mean, stuff like school board and police departments are often organized by county, no?

bpodgursky 5y ago

Honestly I see this failing in Oregon not because anyone is particularly against it, but because the Republicans in the state legislature have no power and the issue would never be brought to the floor.

Balgair 5y ago
True. But for the sake of argument, say they somehow can. What then? Would they actually go through with it? I suppose it goes to their own personal careers. Would they have a better chance of personal success in the new Idaho legislatures or in the current Oregon one? Seeing that the population of Oregon is 4.2M and the new Idaho would be relatively unchanged at 1.7M (these counties combine to 0.06M people), I'd suppose they would want to stay with Oregon as the prestige and career flexibility would be greater in a more populous and richer state. Whatever the new districts of new Idaho would be, these new-comers would still be a small fraction of the legislature. The only way I can see that they would have better careers in new Idaho would be in national politics. And then they have to fight amongst each other and the old Idaho politicians, all of whom would be jealous at the attention these new-comers would have. Unless one of them is especially gifted/lucky, I'm not seeing that as a high likelihood.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  > I'd suppose they would want to stay with Oregon as the prestige and career flexibility would be greater in a more populous and richer state I don't think this really tracks. Being a minority state legislator sucks; you're basically completely ignored. I think most politicians would much rather be in the majority party in a smaller state than a minority in a larger state.

mattste 5y ago

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.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
So it's about maintaining jurisdiction/control? Wouldn't Idaho be capable of regulating that stuff?
csomar 5y ago
Most of these forests are owned by the federal government. Oregon owns less than half of its land.

ineptech 5y ago

> 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.

catgary 5y ago
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.”
- ineptech 5y ago
  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.

ralusek 5y ago

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?

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Or he just knows what this audience would prefer to hear.
PeterisP 5y ago
The [to-be-]seceding counties are strongly in opposition to the currently governing policies in Oregon, so it's quite expected that they (i.e. Oregon government and the petitioners) perceive each other as "nut jobs".
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Fox News reports the same dumpster fire each night (often just reusing video footage each day), I’m not sure how serious they are if they are aiming to burn down the courthouse. Yes, dumpster fires are illegal and those starting them should be punished, but it’s a stretch to say they are trying to burn down the courthouse.
- ralusek 5y ago
  I don't watch Fox News, wouldn't know. But you're under the impression that the illiberal black bloc collectives do not exist in any serious capacity in Portland?
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    They do exist, but their numbers and impact is overblown for propaganda reasons on the right.
    - ralusek 5y ago
      Numbers being overblown? The protests from the left which have dominated the public consciousness have been motivated around the idea that unarmed black people are being killed en masse by the police, a fate literally less likely to happen than a person being struck by lightning. Please explain to me how you determine what exactly constitutes numbers being overblown for propaganda purposes.