We have a similar and indeed geographically overlapping phenomenon down where I live, the would-be state of Jefferson. It will never happen, in either case. Setting aside the legislative hurdles to carving up existing states, even if they were given permission, Jefferson and Greater Idaho are fictional ideals that would not function as hoped even they were created. No matter how you draw the map, you can't create a territory that only has rural areas. There will always be a city in there somewhere and that city will always end up dominating democratic politics unless you undo the vote altogether. And the folks in that city will tend to vote against the wider political goals of the secessionists. The folks of Redding or Boise don't really want to be ruled by a bunch of blowhards up in the hills, any more than the blowhards in question want to be ruled from Sacramento or Portland. So the people raring for a new state or novel vivisections of the existing states would be pretty disappointed by the result, I think. Democracy itself will always put truly rural areas at a disadvantage, for both social and mathematical reasons.I am sure most of you are aware of this.Greater Idaho movement - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Near impossible to get done, but most eastern counties are for it.
Needs the vote of Each state legislature and congress.
I understand their point of view, they are a small population, so a small representation.
It's about geography and migration.
My mother's family came to Oregon in 1846. Not many stayed in the east, because it is dry and harsh land.
Most of the population is in the valley and the coast.
Thoughts?
Good example is Bend in Deschutes County. 100,000 pop. It did not vote to join Greater Idaho.We have a similar and indeed geographically overlapping phenomenon down where I live, the would-be state of Jefferson. It will never happen, in either case. Setting aside the legislative hurdles to carving up existing states, even if they were given permission, Jefferson and Greater Idaho are fictional ideals that would not function as hoped even they were created. No matter how you draw the map, you can't create a territory that only has rural areas. There will always be a city in there somewhere and that city will always end up dominating democratic politics unless you undo the vote altogether. And the folks in that city will tend to vote against the wider political goals of the secessionists. The folks of Redding or Boise don't really want to be ruled by a bunch of blowhards up in the hills, any more than the blowhards in question want to be ruled from Sacramento or Portland. So the people raring for a new state or novel vivisections of the existing states would be pretty disappointed by the result, I think. Democracy itself will always put truly rural areas at a disadvantage, for both social and mathematical reasons.I am sure most of you are aware of this.Greater Idaho movement - Wikipedia
Near impossible to get done, but most eastern counties are for it.
Needs the vote of Each state legislature and congress.
I understand their point of view, they are a small population, so a small representation.
It's about geography and migration.
My mother's family came to Oregon in 1846. Not many stayed in the east, because it is dry and harsh land.
Most of the population is in the valley and the coast.
Thoughts?
The thing is, they DO have a voice. If anything, residents of disproportionately rural states like Idaho and Nevada have "more" of a vote in certain ways, as they have an advantage in the electoral college and senators with less divided constituencies. In this respect, leaving California and Washington would give certain counties more power at the national level. But is that what they really want? Or do they just want... well, independence? Secession. A feeling that "the government" will never balance someone else's needs and interests against their own and choose to favor the other party.
Why not call it The State of Arse? Make Trump's bare buttocks the state seal.
