2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

One of the reasons I moved here from Nevada last year was because, in statewide politics, Nevada had the opposite problem of Oregon ?ﾠthe old, rural areas maintained political control and the new urban area couldn't get what it needed to offer decent education, health care and transportation. Las Vegas had 70 percent of the population but 50 percent of the political power.

The problem, in Nevada and in Oregon, is that the West has simply changed too drastically without our state power structures keeping up. This costs us dearly ? urban areas are always saddled with sending tax dollars to the rurals, and the "Cow Counties" are always tied to the liberal leanings of the cities.

Additionally, it costs us in D.C. Eastern Oregon is lucky in that it is a rural area that has its own U.S. Senator ?ﾠthat's more than the Palouse, the San Joaquin Valley, the Great Basin, even Greater Los Angeles can say for itself. As for the presidential election ?ﾠwhy should a Republican in Burns or Yakima or Fresno even show up to vote?

In a recent discussion on this at my work, we came up with 16 states in the west instead of the 11 that it presently has. Our new map includes a state of Columbia that includes eastern Washington, northeast Oregon, northern Idaho and northwest Montana; Jefferson, with the traditional definition of southern Oregon and northern California; a state for the Bay Area, another for the Central Valley and another for Southern California; and the Mojave, an area including southern Nevada, southwest Utah, northwest Arizona and eastern California. Other changes are made to add parts of states to other states (I'm attempting to attach a map.)

The population and congressional district vote breaks down as follows:

S. CALIF. ? 21,514,103 ? 31 (+2 sens., Dem/Gore in '00, Dem/Kerry in '04)
W. CALIF. ?ﾠ7,823,461 ? 11 (-1 rep., DD)
C. CALIF. ? 6,304,820 ? 9 (+2 sens., +1 rep., DR)
ARIZONA ?ﾠ6,131,518 ? 9 (+1 rep., RR)
WASHINGTON ?ﾠ5,046,396 ?ﾠ7 (No change, RR)
OREGON ?ﾠ3,026,992 ?ﾠ4 (+1 sen., -1 rep., DD)
UTAH ?ﾠ2,562,731 ?ﾠ4 (+1 rep., RR)
THE MOJAVE ?ﾠ2,295,481 ?ﾠ3 (+1 rep., RR)
COLUMBIA ?ﾠ2,077,430 ?ﾠ3 (+1 rep., RR)
IDAHO ?ﾠ1,277,482 ?ﾠ2 (No change, RR)
JEFFERSON ?ﾠ1,256,518 ?ﾠ2 (+2 sens., +1 rep., RR)
MONTANA ?ﾠ701,311 ?ﾠ1 (+1 sen., RR)
NEVADA ?ﾠ757,581 ?ﾠ1 (+2 sens., RR)

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Cascadia, to me, is the I-5 corridor from Redding to Vancouver. What about the Lower Columbia Basin?

posted 5 years, 4 months ago
view in context