ID gonna have seacoast (homeless, yard, robberies)

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by nm9stheham

The point about Washington is that it is another example of a state where the 2 state houses and legislative districts are set up to not do anything to accommodate a power share. This same thing has been done elsewhere and is a source of problems. Seacove's post above illustrates quite well the attitude of winner takes all.... which is only good for strife and contention.

Going back to Idaho, the reverse is true political parties and the of those in the political minority. You see the same complaints, only backwards as for political parties. There have been a lot of movements of people to be near those with similar views; Charlottesville VA is a good example near me. But it does not solve any contentious issue; it ultimately only exacerbates the strife and resentments, because it gives people the excuse to take the attitude of 'those guys over there in XYZ are messed-up' (and of course I am putting that mildly LOL), rather than trying to make compromises. Political affiliations can be the basis for the same thing.

I was wondering what BJM meant by this Oregon movement only solving things short term... perhaps this is what he was meaning...

Yup. That's exactly what I meant.

It's part of a bigger problem. Idaho's reputation as a rock-ribbed solidly extremely conservative state is both exaggerated and historically false.
Oregon is our neighbor! I'm amazed there's so much ignorance over on the other side of the border. By the time Greater Idaho actually came about, Idaho and Oregon could be reversed politically, and those ranchers wouldn't want to leave their conservative state any longer.

In both states, politics has flipped and flipped again. Many many times. Right now, both have been where they are for a long time and both are ripening for another big flip-over. Political affiliation tends to run in 30-year cycles, and Idaho's in the end of one right now.

Far too many self-sorting folks are eager to move here due to that fantasy, and conservative politics is only part, because Idaho is now the paradise state, where everything is beautiful, jobs are plentiful, and life is perfect.

All of it is so exaggerated in outsider's minds as to be fantastical.
We are supposed to know that the grass is never any greener on the other side of the fence, but it appears that some people are either as smart as a cow or as stubborn. They come unprepared, suffer, and leave cursing Idaho.

No one ever wants to move and be disappointed. But it happens all the time.

Folks should remember that even the Garden of Paradise didn't make Adam and Eve happy for very long before they make serious plans to move here.

[pnwguy2]

This talk of splitting up States is foolish. First, it has not happened since the mid 1800’s, and second any changes would not only have to pass entire State approval, but also US congressional approval. Two major hurdles. I guess it is fun to think about but in the end a complete waste of time and energy.

[CAHntr]

I think splitting a state into 2 states, or in this case adding counties from other states into Idaho is not likely to happen for the same reasons pnwguy2 listed--state and Congressional approval being required and difficult hurdles to overcome.

If you put political party registration to the side, a basic tenet of most of these proposals involves people in rural counties not having enough representation that they consider sufficient in their state and laws passed by the majority urban centers which may work well for such urban centers but don't for the rural counties.

A lot states have bicameral legislatures in that they have 2 houses in a legislature. But those states still elect people to both houses by popular vote so urban areas with a majority of the population essentially elect both houses. If a state were to require each county to elect 1 state Senator from within that particular county and then staff their state's Senate with those specifically elected state Senators, each county would have more say in legislation passed by their state's legislature and the rural counties would not be outnumbered by the urban counties in their state's Senate. With such an arrangement, there would be more compromise between urban and rural.

This is similar to what happened when the 17th amendment was passed but the results are quite similar. Rural people are outnumbered, get outvoted and really don't have much say in laws that their respective state passes. Kind of like what smaller states feared when our country was being formed.

[Terryj]

I can understand why the counties of Southern and Eastern Oregon would like to leave Oregon. In Oregon there are 7 counties that determine how the other 29 counties are going to live, where they can build and how they are going to manage their land. Every person that is employed in Oregon pays a transit tax, not for a state transit system but for Portland Trimet Transit. Why would a person that lives in, lets say Baker City, be forced to pay for a transit system they will most likely never use, and the list of crap goes on and on. Now there is an Initiative being put forth to ban the harvesting of any animal by hunting, fishing and trapping and would only allow a self-defense objection. This may sound outrageous, but there are enough far left people living in Oregon that if this ever got on the ballot it might pass.

[rkcarguy]

The 8th Oregon county just voted to join the "Greater Idaho Movement".
The biggest issue that I think is overlooked by liberals and liberal areas who outnumber and rule a state by having a population majority in a small minority of counties, is this. YOUR policies subdue everything from financial success to constitutional rights in the vast majority of counties which are not liberal. WA, OR, and California all suffer from this. Then here come the complaints about the rural areas being welfare counties. The logging industry for example, faces constant threats from increased taxes, carbon caps, and environmental restrictions coming out of progressive leadership. People lose their jobs, lumber prices skyrocket, and the forests burn instead of being properly managed.
I'm sorry but I believe the "Greater Idaho" movement has merit, and both parties will come out of the "divorce" better off. Idaho's conservative policies and lower taxes will lift up the "welfare counties" and they will no longer be a financial drain on the remaining portion of Oregon. Oregon will then be as free as it wants to "liberal it up" all they want without the constant deadlock of the R vs. D standoffs. The biggest question and threat to the movement in my opinion, is the state of Oregon and the Feds allowing this to happen as they will not be in "control" anymore. Sadly, control seems to be a biggie with Dems these days.

[dcisive]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

Sadly, control seems to be a biggie with Dems these days.

Yeah those D's sure are power hungry little buggers aren't they?

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

The 8th Oregon county just voted to join the "Greater Idaho Movement".
...
I'm sorry but I believe the "Greater Idaho" movement has merit, and both parties will come out of the "divorce" better off. Idaho's conservative policies and lower taxes will lift up the "welfare counties" and they will no longer be a financial drain on the remaining portion of Oregon. Oregon will then be as free as it wants to "liberal it up" all they want without the constant deadlock of the R vs. D standoffs. The biggest question and threat to the movement in my opinion, is the state of Oregon and the Feds allowing this to happen as they will not be in "control" anymore. Sadly, control seems to be a biggie with Dems these days.

Greater Idaho may have merit for Oregon, but it has none at all for Idaho.

I firmly believe Oregonians should all stay right where they are and fix their own problems. Washington, too.

Just like I believe Idahoans should stay put and fix our own problems.

Moving the boundaries won't fix anyone's problems. It will only create more problems, and they will be deeper and more complicated.

The Idaho Territory was already chopped up 3 or 4 times before we became a state.

All of us here are now living in what was left. And Washington, Oregon and Montana already took from us everything they wanted. Idaho looks funny now because that's all there was left for we folks who wanted to spend our lives here.

if carving Idaho up then solved nothing, doing it again won't solve anything now.

If you think separating yourself will solve Oregon's problems, then think about making a Lesser Oregon, not a Greater Idaho.

Get to work on your own state and leave ours out of your fight. It isn't ours.

[pnwguy2]

Originally Posted by banjomike

Greater Idaho may have merit for Oregon, but it has none at all for Idaho.

I firmly believe Oregonians should all stay right where they are and fix their own problems. Washington, too.

Just like I believe Idahoans should stay put and fix our own problems.

Moving the boundaries won't fix anyone's problems. It will only create more problems, and they will be deeper and more complicated.

The Idaho Territory was already chopped up 3 or 4 times before we became a state.

All of us here are now living in what was left. And Washington, Oregon and Montana already took from us everything they wanted. Idaho looks funny now because that's all there was left for we folks who wanted to spend our lives here.

if carving Idaho up then solved nothing, doing it again won't solve anything now.

If you think separating yourself will solve Oregon's problems, then think about making a Lesser Oregon, not a Greater Idaho.

Get to work on your own state and leave ours out of your fight. It isn't ours.

Agreed. Boundary changes are not the answer. As I posted earlier, this endeavor is extremely complicated and would take years or decades due to constitutional challenges. Not gonna happen. In the meantime, work out your differences instead of ranting about political divides. There is a reason why our democracy survives and it is because every one in every State has a voice. If someone can offer a better system, let me know.

[WestGuest]

Whenever I see a thread that has ricarguy in it I can guarantee ignorance and misinformation.


Washington and Oregon are liberal not because of majorities in certain counties but because OVERALL their populace is more liberal Someone is not elected Governor by how many counties they win but by the overall vote. There is a legal principle enunciated by the US Supreme Court in Baker v Carr its known as "One person -one vote" Umm Im wasting my time explaining this to him-how about you tell me in which county you reside and I will like you to Free GED Classes.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

The liberal population concentrated in Portland and a few other large cities is large enough to outvote the population of the rest of the state. So, no, the liberal destructive government has not been voted in by all the voters all over the state of Oregon. It has been voted in by the people moving in to Oregon from liberal places like California and Seattle, who have overrun the native population.