Does Eastern and Western Washington need to split into two states (Seattle: how much, house)

[cjg5]

Originally Posted by Seacove

From a purely political perspective, it would probably be more logical to have an Eastern Washington/Eastern Oregon and Western Washington/Western Oregon. I think historically wasn't there a "Cascadia" that included parts of Northern California too?

If you are referring to the proposed country of Cascadia, it is proposed to encompass all of Washington and Oregon States, all of British Columbia, parts of Northern California, and parts of the Alaskan Panhandle. Depending on which source you're using, these boundaries vary. Some of them are set up to include solely the bioregion of Cascaida, for example. Others say it should just be Washington and Oregon, and nothing more. Still others want also parts of Idaho and more of Alaska.

Although I am not necessarily for or against it, I think such a transition would be very interesting to see if it were to ever happen. (Which again, we all know it won't. lol)

[Inkpoe]

Originally Posted by Seacove

From a purely political perspective, it would probably be more logical to have an Eastern Washington/Eastern Oregon and Western Washington/Western Oregon. I think historically wasn't there a "Cascadia" that included parts of Northern California too?

Perhaps you're talking about the State of Jefferson?

Its starting to sound like PNW'ers like drama on a very grand scale, LOL.

[Seacove]

It was probably the State of Jefferson, it was before our time. And we avoid drama in so many other ways, why not border scraps for entertainment?

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by downnice

Also unlike Eastern Oregon where it is useless land Eastern has nice cities in Spokane, Ellensburg and Tri Cities


What do you think should the state spilt in two

I think you should do some more research on your topic. Eastern Oregon is a HUGE agricultural area, supplying large percentages of many products for the entire US. Just because there are no cities the size of Spokane does not make it useless.

I suspect that there is rather more to Eastern Washington then Spokane also.

The State of Jefferson encompasses southern Oregon and northern California, most of that area is National Forest. The State of Jefferson movement was pretty solid right up until December 7th, 1941.

[BellevueNative]

Which state would get Grand Coulee Dam?

Seriously, if people have an issue (on EITHER side), they can move to a different state. The state's boundaries shouldn't - and are not going to - change now simply because some people don't like representative government. My husband - a registered republican - feels like his voice is lost on this side of the state. It works both ways.

[rainforest338]

I don't like the idea of a state split. The eastern half has enough clout to overall keep the state from getting to out-there California style. It isn't as simple as moving to another area, when it is the geography that is the draw to the area you're in and want to be in. I tend to like the E WA culture/society more, but I don't care for the landscape. Give me the RAIN, COLD, FOG, COAST, BIG TREES!!!

[sll3454]

The California forum also has a current thread on splitting their state.

Western Washington and Eastern Washington have differences. That's fine. Diversity within a state is not a bad thing.

[cjg5]

Originally Posted by rainforest338

I don't like the idea of a state split. The eastern half has enough clout to overall keep the state from getting to out-there California style. It isn't as simple as moving to another area, when it is the geography that is the draw to the area you're in and want to be in. I tend to like the E WA culture/society more, but I don't care for the landscape. Give me the RAIN, COLD, FOG, COAST, BIG TREES!!!

Eastern Washington has a much more preferable climate to me, and I think it is absolutely gorgeous over that way as well. Not that this side isn't beautiful! The entire state, no matter where you are, just screams beauty at you. . . . . . . Well, maybe not Tacoma.....

[Count David]

The state should stay unified.

If we allowed this, it would encourage our entire country to effectively become gerrymandered little homogeneous balkans that don't want to interact much with each other.

A little diversity in thought and conflicting ideas shouldn't hurt anybody.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by BellevueNative

Which state would get Grand Coulee Dam?

Seriously, if people have an issue (on EITHER side), they can move to a different state. The state's boundaries shouldn't - and are not going to - change now simply because some people don't like representative government. My husband - a registered republican - feels like his voice is lost on this side of the state. It works both ways.

I totally disagree with you here. What issue exactly, is it that should warrant Washingtonians to leave the state? If they lack complete complacency with Seattle politics, then they should leave the state? Or should they leave the state just because their views and opinions may be less liberal than the current majority?

It's easy to say "if you don't agree with me, move somewhere else", but unfortunately, life is a little more complicated than that. As an example, many families have generations of roots in Eastern WA (that started long before the political rift started) and can't or won't just leave because a liberal from Western WA thinks that they should.

Having said that, I also don't believe we should split into two states, simply because it would likely set a bad precedent for others in the country.