INTRO TO GREATER IDAHO

Exactly what is the problem that needs to be solved?

 

The name of Idaho will not change. No other state is created. Why are you conflating this with the Jefferson movement? Why make stuff up?

 

Ask the person who wanted to cut Idaho in half and give it to Oregon and Washington.

 

While I support the effort, this will not happen. It requires the approval of the Oregon state legislature, who won't be all that keen to give up their representation in Congress. What does Portland get out of this?

Plenty of good areas in the US - Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, Nevada for instance. Why not move to one of them? Leaving your home is never ideal, but you are so close to liberty it's not even funny - do you know what I'd give to be able to simply move to one of those places?

Sometimes you need to look at what you have and be appreciative.

 

This is what I have. I love it here. It’s worth the effort to save it.

https://www.upstateca.com/account/-shasta-cascade-wonderland-association

https://www.shastaedc.org/

https://visitredding.com/






Not an easy place to walk away from.

 

Then you won't mind when we save America from republicans.

 

These petitions, which are also repeatedly showing up in California, make perfect sense to me. The situation that exists when you have a dense population is a small part of a state is that the politics of the big cities rule the politics of areas that are polar opposites in terms of population densities- and usually, in moral values, perceptions of what is proper for government to do and more. These people are in a way being held captive to the substantially different and frequently lower values and philosophies of the concentrated people, and that suppresses their voice. . Reconfiguration would restore a freedom they are entitled to.

 

OK, I think this is a type of Gerrymandering to strengthen conservative voting blocks and weaken liberal ones. I understand that conservatives in California may be frustrated by their lack of political clout, but I would imagine the same would be true of liberals in Idaho or Utah. This would set a dangerous precident all across the country.
Let me know if my guess is wrong.

 

You are wrong. This effort only affects 350,000 of Californias 39.5 million people. There are a lot more conservatives than that that would remain in California. This move would actually strengthen liberals in California as much as it would help conservatives in tiny population Idaho. Some states are too big to govern their population effectively. California is a prime example of that. It’s close to 800 miles on I-5 from Mexico to Oregon. On the east coast of the country it takes several states to have 40 million people. For one of fifty to have one in f eight of the total population is too much

 

It is the Republicans that will save America from the secular progressive urban elite democrats and their inner suburb limousine liberal friends.

 

Nv.
:

Rural having to deal with rules thought up by city folk who have known idea what it's like to grow a potted plant let alone run a farm. Note after seeing what 'sustainable' farming did for Sri Lanka, why would anyone rational want to do that here?

 

So I am wrong. This wouldn't give more political clout to Idaho and the conservative areas of northern California? Couldn't this take a house district or two from California and give one or more to Idaho? If so couldn't that effect the balance of power in The House of Representatives and effect the whole country?

 

No. It would not take a house District from Ca. The ones leaving are less than half of one of the 52 districts (district 1) and would not cause Ca to lose one. The same is true in Washington state. Both areas are currently represented by a Republican. Two Republican congress persons from Oregon would become two Republican members from Idaho. The partisan congressional make up would be unchanged.

 

Nope, sorry.

 

You are still wrong. Where I live we have proven that conservatives can successfully run a city and a county wide metro area successfully. And we do it with sound conservative principles and fiscally sound policies. We also embrace the rural region surrounding us and still act like a small town rather than a city with all the civic activities and public events. When people from rural areas up to 100 miles away in any direction come here for business, shopping, or to attend an event here they are comfortable with their surroundings. The rodeo and parade, farmers markets, a classic car show and cruise of them, the 4th of July, and Christmas season with parade and lights garden are huge here. And we are growing.

https://www.shastaedc.org/

https://online.pubhtml5.com/dsfo/qaiz/#p=8

 

Not a chance.

 

This might be how some will look at it. But frankly its not even close to what the people in those areas that want this are wanting. They're not even thinking on the federal level as much as they are thinking on the local/state level. Those people believe that they are not being listened to by their state legislatures. That the things that they need/want are being ignored in favor of the things that that those in cities want/need. Many of whom don't know what it takes to live in rural/boondock areas....but believe that what is good for them, must also be good for the people living in rural/boondock areas.

As an aside.... The Founding Fathers recognized these differences and is one of the reasons they put the electoral college into place.

 

Nope, they considered themselves a citizen of their state first then america.

 

Good luck.

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1

I doubt the Supreme Court is going to just stand by and pretend the intention of your movement isn't to in essence create a new state.

 

What does this have to do with what I said? And you do know that two things can be true at the same time right?

 

1: You do know that states have split and created new states before right?
2: No one said that Congress wasn't going to have a say in this. But its kind of useless to go to Congress first without first having discussed it with the local population and local governments. Don't ya think?

 

I didn't say it was impossible - I just said "good luck".

 

Not a chance of what exactly? We are becoming successful here despite the state of California. Our prior poor stats are entirely caused by the state of California due to its many bad policies.

https://www.upstateca.com/

a great addition to the state of Idaho!

 

We get it...you don't like CA and like ID. Did it ever occur to you to move to ID? Or you could just continue to whine about CA and do nothing about it.

 

The point here is that this isn’t Jefferson we are talking about here. That movement would create a new state out of part of Ca and maybe some of Oregon. That effort after a court case is now active but dormant. We are waiting for the democrats to try to bring PR and or DC in as states and then propose taking rural areas from one or two big blue states to create one or two additional states in order to maintain parity in the senate and electoral college. That is when our movement would take on new life. In the meantime the Greater Idaho movement doesn’t add a state or change the senate or the partisan make up of the House. Two Republican congress persons from Oregon would become Republican members from Idaho and represent between them the 340,000 from California and 35,000 Washington.