This time they MEAN IT. "Greater Idaho"

[AshWilliams]

Yep, pure fantasy and a colossal waste of time and resources, just like all the talk from the Texas secessionists when I lived there.

Echoing what someone posted above: ain't never Gonna. Bubblegum. Happen.

 

[CamoDeafie]

You could get 20-30 counties in Oregon to vote to secede from Salem/Portland and Oregon Legislature will still not allow it

 

[CamoDeafie]

Look what happened as a consequence of the walkout by Oregon Republicans last cycle, ballot measure to punish walkouts by making them ineligible for reelection after they walked out.

 

[TTSX]

Look what happened as a consequence of the walkout by Oregon Republicans last cycle, ballot measure to punish walkouts by making them ineligible for reelection after they walked out.

Which is a law I have a huge problem with. It essentially requires the red team to show up and watch their constituents' heads get chopped off session after session without so much as an objection. And that's exactly the point.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Which is a law I have a huge problem with. It essentially requires the red team to show up and watch their constituents' heads get chopped off session after session without so much as an objection. And that's exactly the point.

Yup. It'd be nice to see them stick to it and have replacements ready to campaign in their places every time they walk out. In actuality, this could seriously bite the ruling Party in their butts as they'd have to deal with new "lawmakers" every cycle being elected in and these lawmakers walking out every time.

Edit, thats a big if, IF the "opposing" party has any tactical/strategic thinking and plans to put a wrench in Oregon's House legislative sessions

 

[DunRanull]

or the Electoral College

or Term Limits

or (more relevant to this thread), the power balance between Portland/Salem/Eugene & the rest of the state.

Most of the voters in the state Portland/Salem/Eugene will vote however the PTB tell them to vote for/against, and the PTB do not want to divide up the state. Nor does WA DC want that.

Heretic said "or the Electoral College", which raises the questions- what about the EC needs "fixing" and what do you suggest to replace or "fix" it it?

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Umatilla should have voted before the plandemic. Since 2020, half of the newcomers are s#itlibs fleeing from Portland, SeaTac or California.

 

[JRuby]

Umatilla should have voted before the plandemic. Since 2020, half of the newcomers are s#itlibs fleeing from Portland, SeaTac or California.

What did you think would happen when large companies such as Amazon went into Boardman? Amazon's only one many that were built out there. I almost went to work for Amazon a decade a go. I am now happy I did not.

 

[The Heretic]

Heretic said "or the Electoral College", which raises the questions- what about the EC needs "fixing" and what do you suggest to replace or "fix" it it?

Simple majority vote

 

[Jbsheepdog]

Once Greater Idaho is established, the rest will be easy!

The Greater Idaho Militia can begin coordinating with the PATRIOTS in the respective remaining counties of Oregon and can then begin liberating those counties on the weekends as time permits...saving Portland for last.

Once the Militia has the remaining counties under control, they can then begin the process of walling off Portland...to ensure that the disease is contained and can never spreads again.

There's probably also a fair number of counties in Northern California that would help the Idaho Militia in this effort...in exchange for future admittance to Greater Idaho. It's a win/win.

WOLVERINES!

Bro you have got to tell me where you get your drugs, that must be some good stuff your smoking

 

[CamoDeafie]

Heretic said "or the Electoral College", which raises the questions- what about the EC needs "fixing" and what do you suggest to replace or "fix" it it?

Simple majority vote

Until we can get back to the notion that the House of Representatives (and EC by association) should grow in size proportionally to the population, it'll always be impossible to "fix" EC because of the whole "simple majority carries entire State(all States) and winner takes all EC votes(most States)" , where just having a slim/narrow majority gets the entire EC votes awarded to the party that gets the slim majority. This is the whole problem with "battlefield/swing States".

Fixing the size of the EC/House of Reps to the size that it existed in 1910, while the population has more than tripled in the 110+ years since, serves to concentrate all the electoral votes and voting power to a very small group of people.

Just simply tripling the size of the House of reps, means that the EC would grow in size and thus the numbers will more closely align with the popular vote numbers, and quite possibly open up the potential for more 3rd Party candidates.. however if "winner takes all" remains in place in most States, it might still be a moot point. For example, CA has 54 electors. Triple that, means 162 electors. If one Party gets a super small majority, that Party will still get 162 votes into the EC.

 

[DunRanull]

Simple majority vote

THAT is exactly what the Founders called "Tyranny Of The Majority" and why they instituted the Electoral College.

 

[JRuby]

So in a democratic election the majority of votes should not determine the outcome of an election? This does not make sense to me. If true all votes are not the same value and the minority rules? Hard to call that democratic in my opinion.

 

[DunRanull]

The EC empowers the sovereign states and makes it harder for states like California Texas and NY with large urban populations from controlling the entire Republic. We are not and never have been a "democracy".. When the enemies of the Republic do away with the Electoral College, the Civil War is ON.

 

[JRuby]

We have federal democratic republic government which has fair and open democratic elections. We vote for those that represent us
I also don't know of a single or even a couple of states that by themselves would determine the outcome of a.federal election
I for one am ready to get rid of the EC

 

[Diamondback]

Until we can get back to the notion that the House of Representatives (and EC by association) should grow in size proportionally to the population, it'll always be impossible to "fix" EC because of the whole "simple majority carries entire State(all States) and winner takes all EC votes(most States)" , where just having a slim/narrow majority gets the entire EC votes awarded to the party that gets the slim majority. This is the whole problem with "battlefield/swing States".

Fixing the size of the EC/House of Reps to the size that it existed in 1910, while the population has more than tripled in the 110+ years since, serves to concentrate all the electoral votes and voting power to a very small group of people.

Just simply tripling the size of the House of reps, means that the EC would grow in size and thus the numbers will more closely align with the popular vote numbers, and quite possibly open up the potential for more 3rd Party candidates.. however if "winner takes all" remains in place in most States, it might still be a moot point. For example, CA has 54 electors. Triple that, means 162 electors. If one Party gets a super small majority, that Party will still get 162 votes into the EC.

So it needs to be "one elector race per CD with the EV going to whoever takes the district, then two at-large to whoever gets the statewide PV."

 

[Indy62]

Hate to break the news guys, but we're not a pure democracy and never have been.

It's a long, tricky, probably boring discussion..but the short version is we had founders who devoted their lives to philosophy of government.


James Madison, The Federalist No. 10


.....From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

 

[JRuby]

So which country has a better democracy. It appears that a true democracy is a.n impossibility so which country is better at it than the US?

 

[The Heretic]

THAT is exactly what the Founders called "Tyranny Of The Majority" and why they instituted the Electoral College.

The actual result is usually the same, but the side effects of the Electoral College are undesirable. No other election depends on the Electoral College, and Congressional elections are actually more important than the Presidential election.

The Founding Fathers had a misplaced faith in the Electoral College - it is not a bunch of "wise" electors, it is a bunch of political hacks.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Hate to break the news guys, but we're not a pure democracy and never have been.

It's a long, tricky, probably boring discussion..but the short version is we had founders who devoted their lives to philosophy of government.


James Madison, The Federalist No. 10


.....From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

And the EC and House of Reps grew with the population until 1912ish.

The actual result is usually the same, but the side effects of the Electoral College are undesirable. No other election depends on the Electoral College, and Congressional elections are actually more important than the Presidential election.

The Founding Fathers had a misplaced faith in the Electoral College - it is not a bunch of "wise" electors, it is a bunch of political hacks.

Indeed. Thats why "faithless electors" were made out to be a huge issue during the GW Bush elections