No, if we wanted “balance”, then the way to do it would be to hold votes on things, with each person in a rural area getting the same voice as each person in an urban area. That’s exactly what schemes like this are trying to get away from.
No, if we wanted “balance”, then the way to do it would be to hold votes on things, with each person in a rural area getting the same voice as each person in an urban area. That’s exactly what schemes like this are trying to get away from.
I blame the Electoral College and Senate. It’s spoiled them into thinking their votes should always be given greater weight.
Yes he is. His writing is a shining beacon compared to the Sue Madsen counterpart. I read her articles and always walk away scratching my head as I try to interpret what she is trying to say. Now, I know I struggle with the written word myself, but no one is paying me to publish. :rolleyes:
Take away the farm subsidies and see how much they love the “rural lifestyle”. Yeah, living the independent life with their hands out for the taxpayers’ dime and bitching about the damn gubmint.
By population, yes. By area, no. Either way, I’ve often read that many downstate Illinoisans believe that the Chicago area gets more than its fair share of state spending (particularly on infrastructure), and are rather resentful about it, to the point that I wouldn’t be surprised if more than a few of them think it’d be a good idea if metropolitan Chicago were spun off from the rest of the state.
Yep, this actually showed up in my Facebook feed literally yesterday. I mean, I understand the sentiment – anybody who knows Chicago politics and our local Democratic Party understands this. But I don’t think it would work out for them as well as they would think it will.
I lived there ten years and never heard about it.
The way to do it is the way West Virginia did it. Each county decided which way they wanted to go.
As recently as 1991, there was talk of creating a new state out of the Texas panhandle.
Actually, you’re right. I’m probably conflating Texas’s ability to separate into five states with a partitionist movement. I thought there was something more active going on right now, but, apart from some random white supremecist threats, there doesn’t really seem to be.
That said, I live in Chicago, and I’ve never heard anyone seriously propose partitioning Illinois here, but apparently, there was a bill proposed in our legislature about exactly that about a year ago, so who knows.
There’s a kernel of truth in all this:
Maybe, just maybe, arbitrary lines drawn on a map in the 19th Century fail to represent modern demographic/political trends in the region.
Weird and radical idea, I know.
There’s too much emphasis placed on states in our system and much too little emphasis placed on cities. States arguably made sense when we were an agrarian nation, pacem the Whigs and their centralizing tendencies, and most people lived out in the country, but that isn’t true anymore; cities are the economic and social powerhouses, they always have been at least in the industrial era, and these days they’re also the population centers by a huge margin. Giving Wyoming more overall power than New York City in some parts of government is idiotic if you’re even remotely interested in representative, responsible government.
So if you can’t or won’t see that states as America knows them are an anachronism, the next best step is seeing that the state boundaries as America currently has them are an embarrassment. Case in point: The only reason I live in Montana is because a man named Sidney Edgerton got the ear of President Lincoln first before Idahoans had a chance to object, so Idaho got massively shortchanged to the point Montana got Missoula and Idaho got Sandpoint. I used to live by another little quirk, the bootheel of Missouri. Point being, these lines aren’t sacred, but they are of monumental importance in politics, and revising them is a natural urge. Not nearly as intelligent as the urge to do away with them entirely, though.
This “New Idaho” proposal is idiotic, partially because of all of its specific features and partially because states in general are idiotic.
Hey! I live near Sandpoint! It is regularly voted top ten small towns for something or other. I’d be OK with Montana though. After all, you’re nice enough to put us on your license plate.
California last subdivided counties to make new ones in 1893 but the dream dies hard in eastern parts of the nation’s biggest county (San Bernardino) and it’s 1/3 sized southern neighbor (Riverside) where many dwellers of the stinking desert east of the populated cismontaine valleys feel excluded. Yucca County FTW! Or maybe Joshua Tree County, I forget now. Counties are lots easier to divide than states but when and where was the last new county formed ANYWHERE in the US? I’m guessing an Alaskan borough, which like a Louisianan parish is a county equivalent.
I pass State of Jefferson signs in [del]Amateur[/del] Amador County next to little [del]Sacratomato[/del] Sacramento County. That’s a long way from Oregon. See California’s partition / secession attempts. Having lived in middle of desolate Yuccaland, I grok resentment of being ruled from afar. BTW, how have secession movements in eastern Russia and western China worked out?
Revising or eliminating states would be a revolutionary act. States are semi-sovereign and unlike municipalities.
You might as well say that this or that piece of Canada more properly belongs in the U.S. so we will just take it.
Tabarnia. Sorry, it doesn’t seem to be available in English.
you know I remember a few years back that the high desert wanted to form “north la county” because la country treats us like trash mostly but it never went farther than the
“what if” stage because we couldn’t afford it …
I also remember when san Fernando wanted to leave la and there were so many lawsuits and back door bs that by the time the vote occurred almost 8 years later no one cared anymore …
As far as I could tell from googling, there are only three pot shops in Ontario OR. But I could be wrong, because it was difficult to tell whether certain shops sold recreational or just medical. But even three would be far more than adequate for that town. Much smaller Huntington, thirty miles up the road, which Ontario took most of the Idaho trade from, has two of them. Which is two more than that town needs. I expect at least one of those will close.
Yeah, they want one acre-one vote.
This whole scheme needs approval by the legislatures of the states involved. It’s going to go exactly nowhere in the Oregon legislature, assuming some representative actually submits a bill on it. Ditto for California. I keep reading the Oregonian’s webpage and have not seen anything about this. Which is somewhat surprising; I figured they’d do a story about it.
If state realignments like this help change the disproportionate representation of conservative minorities in the Senate then I’m for it. If it just keeps everything the same there’s no point
The Franklin proposal, which goes back over 80 years, would actually increase the disproportionate representation. It would take land from two blue states and makes a new red state from it.
This Greater Idaho plan would not change the Senate, since it’s not creating a new state. But it would increase Idaho’s Congressional representation by two. Oregon’s and California’s numbers would decrease by one each. That would shift the Electoral College red-ward. I’m sure this is one of the reasons for the proposal.