Your view lost the American Civil War so there’s no point discussing what other countries might do about secession. Comparing a county splitting up with a country doing so is kind of dumb anyway, just way too many qualitative and quantitative differences.
A good move. If an ethnic minority within a jurisdiction would like to get out from under a majority not aligned with them, I encourage it. This goes for if the ethnic minority is black, Native American, Jewish, Palestinian, or white. Perhaps this last one makes me a white supremacist to some.
Same thing goes for non-ethnic minorities including ideological minorities, cultural minorities, or food-preference minorities.
So political disputes should be settled by the results of brute force conflicts 150 years ago.
Perhaps the whites do not agree with the political policies of the election winners?
While this sounds vaguely reasonable on the surface, it stinks to high heaven when the “get out from under” movement starts immediately after losing power for the first time in decades.
Your oppressors have barely had a chance to take roll call, ferchrissake.
Looking back on some history of the county, it appears one of the political positions of those who ended up being election winners was “please let us have an ambulance to get sick people to the hospital,” which was opposed by the Powers that Be.
THIS political dispute HAS been settled by brute force 150 years ago. Or did I miss something? Can a state just vote to secede from the U.S.?
But my main point was that the lower down the governance level you go, the more ridiculous allowing free secession is.
It doesn’t appear to be an issue that was immediately raised after the results of the most recent election though. This article from 1997 talks about splitting this county, and a study that was conducted to look at the impact:
It could be economics driven, or it could be race driven, or some combination. But based on some of the history, it seems clear that the economics are at least part of the motivating issues.
It’s not really JAQ when one of my sentences starts out “My view is”, is it? Anyways, here’s a quote from the SLTrib article:
Care to guess which political party Patrice Arent and the woman with the hyphenated last name belong to?
Who cares? Your knee-jerk criticism of non-conservatives is the least important issue here.
Especially when the offence of hyphenating a last name has occurred.
Yeah they’re probably unsavory people, we should keep them in our community.
Irrelevant. Is the difference strictly racial or is there a political difference?
Either you let them go, or you force them to stay and influence your political system.
Should we say that brute force confrontations determine policy right now? Those people are all dead.
“Free secession”? Is there a version of secession that is reasonable? Should battered wives be permitted to secede from marriages? That’s pretty low on the “governance level”. Should people be allowed to flee the oppressive HOA?
If you don’t permit secession on a low level, you probably won’t permit it on a higher level. There is very little cost to allowing a “secession” like this.
Those sound like emigration issues.
So there is no level of secession you would tolerate, no matter how innocuous and trivial.
I’m still not over Pangaea splitting up.
If you scroll back to what CarnalK quotes in post #15, you’ll see that what’s required for the split is mutual agreement by both sides. And that’s a standard I’d be happy to support.
I think I’ve still got a worn-out “Reunite Gondwanaland” t-shirt in the back of the closet. 
Since a judge has found that the gerrymandering was a violation of the Civil Rights Act, for now I’m going to stick with the the judge’s view that race is a critical factor in the dispute.
If I hear some new information that is more enlightening than “let’s blame liberals because taxes” or “secession for everyone, all the time!” then I’m perfectly happy to reconsider my opinion.
(By the way, is there any irony that the Civil War lost causers blamed the whole war on taxes rather than race, and now we’re hearing from certain quarters that the Utah issue is just about taxes rather than race? I’m not sure, but I thought I’d throw the question out there.)
HD, Imagine 50 of your nearest neighbors move out and are steadily replaced with super-liberal granola hipsters, with “Ocasio-Cortez 2024” bumper stickers on their electric vehicles as they drive in. They all decide that the local Utah county is too conservative, so they want your neighborhood to secede and form its own locally run enclave, with huge taxes on meat, dairy, gasoline, gluten, and GMO produce. Based on their arbitrarily selected borders which includes your house, they have more than 50% of the vote to secede.
Who thinks its appropriate for the rest of the county to have the power to veto that decision?