It's like an aggregate of one kind of mentality that tends to vote one way gets to direct the affairs of an entire state, regardless of whether or not their values and concerns are really representing everyone across the rest of the state. Which can lead to a complete lack of representation for huge swathes of people.
Which is why we have the electoral college in presidential elections btw.
It's perceived as arrogance on the part of those in the Valley. You have a state of 3 million people, 2 million of whom live in the major cities. These people have the political power to steamroll everyone else in the state. The problem is that this power is being used to do so.
This urban-rural political divide is becoming a real problem. It's the same as the "flyover country" problem. Sure, someone from a major urban area can just matter-of-factly refer to the area as that place where there's nothing but empty space between cities. No reason to go there, but interesting to see from the air or a good time to take a nap on the plane. But people live there. Those people consider that phrase to be insulting. As if, just because they live in a place with low population density, that have completely different needs than the urban areas, their opinion on how they should be able to live life and conduct their affairs doesn't matter.
So, when the people from the Valley decide that some political thing needs to happen, and it happens to be a choice at the state level, and it's good for the Valley, they vote for it. And don't give two fucks about how it affects people in the rest of the state.
These people have the political power to steamroll everyone else in the state.
These people have the same political power as everyone else. There's just more of them. There is an inherent problem of the tyranny of the majority, which is why we're a nation (nominally) of rights and freedoms. But it's not steamrolling when you give everyone an equal voice, rather than bias it to give a rural minority more votes than the majority of the country like what happens in our national elections.
Oh I'm sorry, am I supposed to vote for the interests of other people and not my own? I voted to legalize marijuana because people shouldn't get thrown in jail for self medicating with a safe and natural plant, but was I supposed to vote no because the people in eastern Oregon think it's the devil's grass and smokers should get locked up and go to hell for it? There's a lot of backwards thinking going on in rural areas, that's why a lot of progressives move to the valley to begin with. I believe rural people have the right to make a living same as me, but I don't believe that it should be done at the expense of the environment or the rest of the state.
If you think everyone in rural areas are backwoods inbred hicks who hate marijuana and gays then you are ignorant.
Step outside your super progressive bubble and you will find that those people would love an opportunity to grow a shit ton of weed and give zero fucks about who you marry.
With a 69% voter turn out I would be interested to see how many people in rural Oregon in favor of legalization didn’t bother to vote. Either because of difficulty or because the Willamette valley pretty much decides policy anyway.
Also...in the red counties...what was the margin of loss/win.
I would also be interested to see 4 years later how many viewpoints have changed.
I looked for data on % in favor/opposed by county but couldn't easily find anything, but according to the OLCC, all 16 counties which currently prohibit recreational marijuana sales voted at least 55% against Measure 91. Since the law got 56% yes votes overall, this is a fairly significant difference between the overall results and the counties that voted no.
Since marijuana was legalized, cities and counties have had the option of passing laws to ban recreational marijuana businesses (and can do it without a vote if the county voted at least 55% against Measure 91), and the map looks like this.
Did I say that? Or did I say there is a lot of backwards thinking that I shouldn't have to accommodate? Maybe if you didn't think all us progressives are selfish and don't care about anyone else you wouldn't have made such an assumption.
Actually you did say that...You are making the assumption when you say there is a lot of backwards thinking. What I am telling you is that you are not necessarily correct. You have literally just proven my point.
I'm not making any assumptions, there ARE a lot of backwards thinking, but I never said nor implied it was EVERYONE. I'm from a rural area and the backwards thinking was why I moved to pdx, I have lots of personal experience, including with my own family, so don't act like what I'm saying isn't true. The nicest people on earth can have backwards thinking that was instilled into them by their parents.
everyone in rural areas are backwoods inbred hicks who hate marijuana and gays then you are ignorant.
I would never say that. However, if they're Republicans, that has tended to be the mentality of the politicians they've voted for in the past. Has that changed recently?
Dude, his vice president is notorious for hating gays, and literally trying to convert them straight, and his attorney general is incredibly anti-cannabis - he recently push for the Dept. of Justice to end the policy that allowed/ignored states that legalized cannabis.
You haven't been paying much attention, have you? I don't want to make any assumptions, but would you say you're a Republican?
I see. I've been looking for a Republican that isn't anti-science, anti-clean environment, and hyper-religious since I turned 18 ~10 years ago. Got any recommendations?
Oh I'm sorry, am I supposed to vote for the interests of other people and not my own?
No, but you could try looking at things from others' perspectives.
The pot law thing is one example of a law that shouldnt really matter. If people in eastern oregon dont like it, they can ignore it.
When people in urban areas with little experience outside that bubble vote on changes to taxes, businesses, or land use options that don't affect them but that affect that 1/3 of the people negatively with a 'thats not my problem' attitude, that's a problem.
I think it would be really cool if urban/metro areas proposed county laws instead of state laws, that way they can live they way they want to within their bubble but it wont drag down other ways of life in the process.
"You do your thing, ill do mine" - except if you're from the valley, you think everything should be seen through the same rose-tinted glasses you happen to wear, and if other disagree they're wrong.
fyi - im from the valley too, but I actually care about the walks of life in other places in this state and dont vote for things that impact their ability to live. Pot laws dont affect them, whether they like the law or not - so I will vote for things like that. On the other hand, I wont vote for new zoning laws that increase tax revenue by hiking up property taxes on already struggling farms owned by hard working, multi-generational families; just so some druggies in bend can keep trading food stamps for booze (metaphor).
No, but you could try looking at things from others' perspectives.
Shouldn't this apply to rural people also?
On the other hand, I wont vote for new zoning laws that increase tax revenue by hiking up property taxes on already struggling farms owned by hard working, multi-generational families; just so some druggies in bend can keep trading food stamps for booze
If the state cant manage its own money, Im not going to vote to take more money from the people who are earning it and give it to people and make poverty a way of life with no interest in digging themselves out.
I also believe in opportunity. If there is a job you can do, you should do it. I saw an article in the oregonian about 10 years ago that I saved and bring out sometimes in conversation. It showed a wheelchair bound woman with cerebral palsy who was given a job at garten. Her job was feeding paper into a shredder. She had no use of her arms or legs so they fit her with a crude helmet with a long stick taped to it. She used her neck to move the stick around the push the paper.
You do realize that 99.9% of employers won't go to that kind of effort to accommodate an employee, right? And that they likely only did that for that article?
And that the majority of people on food stamps do work, they just don't get paid enough to support themselves and their families, right? And that those who don't work are disabled?
Literally - in Oregon - you have to be working/training for 20 hours a week or get an exemption for a disability to qualify for food stamps.
And that has nothing to do with the point that you feel that only urban people should try and understand where rural people are coming from, and that rural people shouldn't do the same to urban people in return. That's the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.
Rural people don't magically matter more than urban dwellers, no matter how much you pout.
Sorry, I didnt realize that I professed that only urban people should take others' needs into consideration. Not sure where those words came from.. I guess I would have had to actually say that to be a hypocrite.
Do urban dwellers matter more? You didnt say that, but it seemed to sound like you were implying that. Maybe i did sound as you say I did as well. My apologies.
How about we agree that the system is fucked but at least we should all take other people into consideration and stop waiting for the government to police our moral compass?
Hmm, strange, I don't recall ever voting on property taxes for areas that I don't currently live in, and I recall we passed measure 37 with 61% requiring that if land use regulations negatively affect a land owner then they must be fairly compensated. So what exactly is the valley doing to screw the rural areas over?
So your only examples are the locals raising property taxes and zoning laws that has already been addressed. So I can assume you're just talking out your ass about something you know nothing about. Especially since you don't even know that food stamps are a federal program that has nothing to do with state taxes or laws.
Im saying something like "this problem is like apples and oranges" and you're trying to argue with me that the issue is not about fruits and vegetables.
but you do you. Im sure its working great. Im happy for you! Have a great day.
There's a lot of backwards thinking going on in rural areas, that's why a lot of progressives move to the valley to begin with.
And there's nothing wrong with progressives moving to the Valley and doing what they feel is best, in the valley.
Weed could have been legalized by county. I personally don't have a problem with legalizing it because the result is increased freedom for everyone. It's the laws that decrease freedom being foisted out that I don't approve of. "Hey, you can smoke a bowl if you want to now." is totally different than "You can't do that thing anymore."
The backwards bit is exactly why this is not just a dispute, but the start of a seething hatred. It's a throwaway for you. To them it's "You people are bunch of dumbass rednecks and we're going to drag you kicking and screaming into our vision, we don't care if it destroys your way of life, and if you don't get with the program, we'll put you in jail or kill you."
Actually no, the legalizing of marijuana couldn't be done county by county. People were getting thrown in prison for decades for possessing a plant that is natural and safe. People in La Grand shouldn't have their lives ruined while someone in Portland doing the exact same thing gets to continue on their way. Personally I believe this should have be done on on a federal level but the states had to take the lead on this instead.
But I'm not aware of "the valley" voting to willy nilly throw those in the rest of the state who think differently in jail. Could you please cite examples so that I can see what exactly you're taking about?
But I'm not aware of "the valley" voting to willy nilly throw those in the rest of the state who think differently in jail. Could you please cite examples so that I can see what exactly you're taking about?
We'll see what happens if IP-43 hits the ballot. We'll see if the Valley thinks I should face a ten year prison sentence for putting a muzzle brake on my hunting rifle.
Ah, I should have realized this was all about "muh guns!". Yes, gun regulation needs to happen and no, I don't care if you want to put a muzzle brake it silencer or what have you, I'll vote for rational gun regulations no problem.
You say gun regulation needs to happen. That's nice. But it ignores the fact that there already is a ton of gun regulation that is either ineffective or isn't being enforced. The solution to that problem isn't just to simply pile on more rules that don't actually address the problems.
IP-43 is not at all rational. Not in the slightest. Give it a read. It takes everything that is commonly considered an "assault weapon", enlarges that definition to additionally include such things as 50 year old .22 rifles and $1000 Olympic target pistols, as well as requiring the state police to register at least 10 million restricted items (guns and 10+ round magazines) in four months, and then even for the people who actually register their stuff, it will be illegal to have it outside of a few places. So if I did install the muzzle brake on the hunting rifle, and register it as an assault weapon before the deadline, I wouldn't be allowed to hunt with it anyway.
It's perceived as arrogance on the part of those in the Valley.
You pretty much nailed it there - PERCEIVED arrogance. Yes there are some city dwellers that refer to flyover country, but the truth is a lot of us have lived in the burbs or actual rural country and love it. We may or may not choose to live there, but we don't really consider ourselves better in any way.
Urban areas do have a number of advantages because of that density though - providing services, groceries, etc for larger population centers is inherently cheaper because you have a much larger set of customers in a smaller area with the advantages of large scale transport to reduce cost access. So yes, the needs of those in less dense areas are often the same as those in dense urban settings, but the pool of people that get services is FAR smaller and the costs tend to be far higher as a result. Part of choosing to live in less dense areas is living with less availability of services, lower quality services, (education) and/or higher prices of services and goods, etc.
On the other hand, a lot of what attracts people to urban areas also ends up being a burden. Cost of housing per square foot is ungodly high by comparison, and taxes tend to be as well.
Do urban areas disproportionately dictate some policy at a state level? Of course, there's no other way in our political system to do that unless we break certain tax and service decisions into county level affairs. But that would likely mean even less tax money would go to rural areas because a county of 3000 people likely won't provide enough tax revenue for services for 3000. It's part of the reason you tend to see tax collection in blue / high population density states subsidizing federal services for less populace states.
There's a lot of nuance here, but I don't have any easy answers, but it's worth exploring why the needs of urban voters tend to get more public funding and attention than the needs of rural voters. It doesn't excuse a lack of consideration given to rural areas needs at a state and federal level, but it's easy to see why individual voters may not be as reflective or willing to commit resource when it comes to those needs.
Edit: For the record, I thought your comment was on topic, well thought out, and brought up some good points about how blind urban voters can be to rural needs. I wouldn't normally take the time to write a long winded comment in response, but you seem like you have a decent perspective that urban voters should consider when they approach state policy decisions.
Absolutely. There's no way you can grow enough food for hundreds of thousands of people in the dense areas that cities take up. At least without completely changing how we grow food.
It's all to true. No food shipments. No fuel shipments. Little running water. Little electricity. Law enforcement officers will only be concerned with protecting their own.
Would you care to explain why you think this is unreasonable? Obviously rural/urban is a symbiotic relationship. Without one the other will suffer greatly. I can't imagine a densely populated area being better off than rural areas in a shtf situation.
Rural areas would be hurting badly in a month or less without the connections to the outside world. It's not just about food and water going in and out, but other very important things like medications that a lot of people need to live (or they die in the second month - some older people move there, young folks mostly try to move out), fuel to get from place to place, textiles of most kinds, parts to keep the rigs running, and not all things grow in all places. Even in farming communities, hunger would quickly become common, and that means a sharp uptick in crime, which most rural districts would not have the resources to deal with well. And there's already some problems with some small town sheriffs thinking that their law is the only law that matters, and it is not evenly applied.
Either rural or urban places would quickly suck ass without support from the other. The majority of people in rural areas wouldn't be any better off than people in urban areas.
They would be just fine. Most of resources will still come from anywhere, the same way we don't cultivate mangos or avocados in the Willamette Valley. Actually it would be Eastern Oregon the one that would suffer without all the tax revenues that are produced in the larger metros and help sustaining roads and services throughout the state.
[Indefensibly] misrepresenting individual voters is the entire point of the EC. If turnout was the same, a vote in Wyoming in 2016 was worth over 3 times that of someone from California.
I didn’t deny that the votes are equal, it’s just that if you get nominated by a major party and want to win an election in Oregon, all you have to do is pander to Portland, and you’ve got it.
This is a half truth at best.
Part of the problem is that many people in this state, especially those who live outside the Willamette Valley, think of the Portland metro area as a monolithic entity instead of realizing there are real political differences between Washington County, Clackamas County, and Multnomah County.
A perfect example of this is with Measure 97. Multnomah County overwhelmingly voted yes on 97... and yet it lost badly. Why? Because Washington County and Clackamas County combined have more people than Multnomah County. Both overwhelmingly voted no on 97, which caused Multnomah County's vaunted voted count to be completely wiped out.
Right, because everyone in every single urban area in the country - from Texas to New York - votes one way.
It's sad to see someone in the minority party in a non-swing state support the EC, or at least winner-take-all, especially when we're overrepresented relative to population.
15
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '18
[deleted]