'Greater Idaho' took one step closer to being a real thing(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
'Greater Idaho' took one step closer to being a real thing
https://www.businessinsider.com/oregons-rural-counties-search-for-representation-with-idaho-2021-5
22 comments
Maybe I am just being cynical, but I could see Oregon refusing this to prevent the state from losing an electoral vote (maybe more than one?). That electoral vote would almost certainly switch from the Democratic nominee to the Republican one.
> Maybe I am just being cynical, but I could see Oregon refusing this to prevent the state from losing an electoral vote (maybe more than one?). That electoral vote would almost certainly switch from the Democratic nominee to the Republican one.
I think quite a few more counties would have to move in order to shift an electoral vote, but they may be closer to the threshold needed for Idaho to (eventually) gain a congresscritter and Oregon to lose one.
I think quite a few more counties would have to move in order to shift an electoral vote, but they may be closer to the threshold needed for Idaho to (eventually) gain a congresscritter and Oregon to lose one.
Add that to the ever-growing list of reasons to get rid of the Electoral College.
I’m sure this is a general comment on the electoral college, but it’s always bothered me that criticisms of the electoral college (generally made by Democrats, since they are negatively affected at the national level) tend to completely ignore the fact that a huge portion of people are disenfranchised in nearly all states. I imagine that Republican voters in California feel just as frustrated about their electoral votes going blue as Democratic voters in California are about the relative value of their electoral votes (which they get to control completely).
The focus is on the national outcome so much, that actually enfranchising voters is seen as a problem. And unlikely other ways of suppressing and disenfranchising voters, it’s perfectly fine to discuss and strategize around this.
Personally, I’d much rather see states send proportional electoral votes than a national popular vote. Perhaps that can fix the problem here? Give the counties to Idaho, but on the condition that both Oregon and Idaho assign electoral Nebraska-style — everyone is enfranchised, and you have an outcome (from those states at least) that is practically guaranteed to be representative.
The focus is on the national outcome so much, that actually enfranchising voters is seen as a problem. And unlikely other ways of suppressing and disenfranchising voters, it’s perfectly fine to discuss and strategize around this.
Personally, I’d much rather see states send proportional electoral votes than a national popular vote. Perhaps that can fix the problem here? Give the counties to Idaho, but on the condition that both Oregon and Idaho assign electoral Nebraska-style — everyone is enfranchised, and you have an outcome (from those states at least) that is practically guaranteed to be representative.
The electoral college was not originally winners take all.
The problem is that going proportional only works out for the states if everyone is doing it, otherwise a massive winner takes all state is that much more important to swing.
The problem is that going proportional only works out for the states if everyone is doing it, otherwise a massive winner takes all state is that much more important to swing.
> The problem is that going proportional only works out for the states if everyone is doing it, otherwise a massive winner takes all state is that much more important to swing.
It completely depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to enfranchise all of your citizens, then going proportional is great. If your goal is for your state to pick the winner, then it doesn't. But the first one seems more important to me, so I think going proportional is beneficial even if not all states are doing it (and some states do it already).
It completely depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to enfranchise all of your citizens, then going proportional is great. If your goal is for your state to pick the winner, then it doesn't. But the first one seems more important to me, so I think going proportional is beneficial even if not all states are doing it (and some states do it already).
The problem is not that the state doesn't pick the winner, the problem is that it disadvantages the winner of that state immensely.
If in some hypothetical election state A goes 15/10 for candidates X and Y but state B goes a full 20 for Y, then it the majority opinion of state A got screwed over and B hands the election to Y.
If in some hypothetical election state A goes 15/10 for candidates X and Y but state B goes a full 20 for Y, then it the majority opinion of state A got screwed over and B hands the election to Y.
You are using strange logic there.
"The majority opinion of state A got screwed over" => the state didn't disenfranchise the minority in favor of the majority? It's funny to say that you "got screwed" by having your vote count for only your vote. The reality is that the minority in large states are the ones getting completely screwed today, and that a proportional system would result in a more fair outcome. That only "screws over" the majority voters in the sense that it takes away their privilege that they enjoy today.
Yes, other states would continue to "screw over" the minority, but that's hardly an argument in favor of you doing so given that the whole argument against the electoral college is a moral one (one citizen, one vote). The ol' "everyone should be moral, but I will only do so if it doesn't disadvantage my majority" isn't a great look.
If we all agree that a national popular vote is the ideal because every single vote counts, then surely a proportional electoral vote is an improvement over winner-take-all per state. The only reason to say otherwise would be that it doesn't produce the outcome that you want. (Which is why I find the electoral college arguments somewhat cynical -- they seem to be interested only in that aspect.)
"The majority opinion of state A got screwed over" => the state didn't disenfranchise the minority in favor of the majority? It's funny to say that you "got screwed" by having your vote count for only your vote. The reality is that the minority in large states are the ones getting completely screwed today, and that a proportional system would result in a more fair outcome. That only "screws over" the majority voters in the sense that it takes away their privilege that they enjoy today.
Yes, other states would continue to "screw over" the minority, but that's hardly an argument in favor of you doing so given that the whole argument against the electoral college is a moral one (one citizen, one vote). The ol' "everyone should be moral, but I will only do so if it doesn't disadvantage my majority" isn't a great look.
If we all agree that a national popular vote is the ideal because every single vote counts, then surely a proportional electoral vote is an improvement over winner-take-all per state. The only reason to say otherwise would be that it doesn't produce the outcome that you want. (Which is why I find the electoral college arguments somewhat cynical -- they seem to be interested only in that aspect.)
well, not really. people would like EC vote outcomes that come as close as possible to the popular vote as possible. In that regard for the past 250~ years a EC winner who didn't win the popular vote only happened 5 times, and it didn't happen at all for 112 years.
A weird halfway proportional reform, if anything, would probably take elections farther away from representing the popular vote outcome. And ultimately, that's what matters, because the entire point of voting is that more votes are supposed to result in greater say.
A weird halfway proportional reform, if anything, would probably take elections farther away from representing the popular vote outcome. And ultimately, that's what matters, because the entire point of voting is that more votes are supposed to result in greater say.
I think we’ll just have to agree to agree. I don’t think the outcome of such a change is really knowable, especially since it can change voting behavior. In any case, the argument that the current apportionment typically produces a matching result, and that’s it’s possible a proportional allocation by some states could produce a worse result in some cases (and a better result in others) isn’t a compelling reason for me to ignore the moral argument, if indeed the moral conviction is genuinely held. (But I don’t think it often is, which is my original point.)
The southern and eastern parts of Oregon wanting to break away from Portland is a very old story. Look into the "State of Jefferson." I suspect this will go nowhere, because if it were that easy, it would have happened a long time ago.
This actually seems like a win win vis a vis representation.
Amen
government of the people, by the people, for the people,...
government of the people, by the people, for the people,...
It seems ironic that the country that devised "no taxation without representation" requires approval from a state and federal authority for them to adequately receive culturally aligned representation that a majority of constituents desire.
Every day it astounds me that the US still exists as a governing entity. It doesn't feel like a nation capable of adapting to times like these and is getting a stronger fist by the week. Every day I compare china to the US and think the only difference is instead of the government wanting to imprison me, it's other people wanting to sue or libel me. My rights only exist "potentially" in court even if it's an amendment right. It feels like a gangrenous bandaid that desperately needs to be torn off, but nobody wants to do it because it'll hurt too much.
Every day it astounds me that the US still exists as a governing entity. It doesn't feel like a nation capable of adapting to times like these and is getting a stronger fist by the week. Every day I compare china to the US and think the only difference is instead of the government wanting to imprison me, it's other people wanting to sue or libel me. My rights only exist "potentially" in court even if it's an amendment right. It feels like a gangrenous bandaid that desperately needs to be torn off, but nobody wants to do it because it'll hurt too much.
You’re trying compare apples to asteroids. Sure they’re made up of matter, but that’s where it ends.
Just because some individuals don’t get what they want doesn’t meant they don’t have a voice/aren’t represented. It means their opinions are not-yet popular/currently in the minority.
Just because some individuals don’t get what they want doesn’t meant they don’t have a voice/aren’t represented. It means their opinions are not-yet popular/currently in the minority.
When they applied for statehood, it wasn't a complicated vote. Now to secede their statehood with someone else whom aligns better with them, they require the state and federal government to agree with it?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Ironic that those counties are right next to one of the very few Idaho counties that votes Democratic.
Am I the only one who really wants to see this happen, but not for political reasons? I don’t really care about the Democrat/Republican split; I just think border changes (especially more geographically representative ones) are cool.
Those counties likely take far more revenue than they produce. Maintaining the roads in those areas alone is likely quite expensive. I can't imagine that Oregon would be that upset about them leaving. And I can't imagine Idaho would really want to pick up that bill.
Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.