portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

political theory

Oregon secession NOW!

Oregon secession, time to take action!
It is about time that we stop sitting around and saying that we are going to do somthing and then not actually doing anything.
We need to start getting active.
I think those of you who agree with me, we should meet sometime and discuss
secession and get with the program and get this going.
I think it would be great if we could meet sometime within the next few months or so. If interested let me know. Tell anybody that might be interested.

If you have know idea what I'm talking about, read my other posting and get an idea.
Oregon? you mean Cascadia? 10.Aug.2005 16:30



"If you have know (sic) idea what I'm talking about, read my other posting and get an idea."

What other post?

yes 10.Aug.2005 17:26


Cascadia 10.Aug.2005 17:55


this is for a dialogue about Cascadia  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cascadian_Bioregionalism/

Oregon alone would be doomed. The state would be an island in a see of the USA. Washington State and even northern California as well as British Columbia would be a logical "country".

cascadia 10.Aug.2005 17:57


my critic 10.Aug.2005 18:51

Julie of Cascadia

That is a great entry of wikipedia.

yes, but 10.Aug.2005 22:06


"Washington State and even northern California as well as British Columbia would be a logical 'country'"

I definitely agree, but also beware of climate change. The coastal regions could become endangered through a series of natural events, tidal waves being among the possibilities. Some would say that the southwest and mountain region could be an ideal place for such a secession to take place.

A blockaded island in a sea of hostility ... 11.Aug.2005 00:13



I'm sorry, but Oregon Secession on its own cannot work and would be a serious disaster. Most of us actually support the idea you are proposing, but it will take all of Cascadia to do the job. And we will need the support of likeminded Californians too, who also need our support.

As A_Cascadian pointed out, the secession of Oregon on its own will place ALL of us who live in Oregon, as well as Oregon's environment in EXTREME physical danger simply because we will be a small hunk of land SURROUNDED by an Amerikan power structure. If Oregon seceeded today, the Amerikans would not bat an eyelash over wiping the floor with us. Since you support Oregon Secession, I am going to assume that you have already come to the realization that the United States is nothing short of a police state governed by war mongers who considers themselves beyond moral reproach and who considers no form of brutality a crime, so long as they have committed it. We are talking about a country who already terrorizes and brutalizes what is essentially a shit-scared population of nationialistic sheep who do nothing but consume out of fear. In September, George Bu$h used physical violence against the citizens of small-town Jacksonville for the "crime" of daring to boo him and he will undoubtedly think nothing of putting down REAL rebellion in Oregon by way of the gun (if not by way of the bomb and missile). Besides, Earth First! has been a pain in the ass for him lately, so it's not like he's that much out of pocket if he firebombs every tree on the place in the process.

Ultimately, we will be surrounded on three sides by a group of states that pack a tremendous amount of military power. A large share of the American Pacific fleet is stationed in Puget Sound (which will undoubtedly be used to blockade our coastline to starve us dry), while in the meantime, Fort Bragg in California is one of the largest U.S. Army bases anywhere. Meanwhile, just across the Snake River is Mountain Home Airforce Base, while there are major U.S. air bases in California and Nevada. All of this could be mobilized against us in a matter of a few hours. I think it's safe to say that a large number of Oregonians would take up arms, but we wouldn't last long simply because they have a lot of resources nearby.

On a personal level, if it all began now, I for one have no problem taking a personal risk to live free or to repel an Amerikan invasion and many others undoubtedly feel the same way, but what you are suggesting is not a fair fight, but is in reality, little more than suicide simply because Oregon alone doesn't have the resources to survive the sort of retaliation that they would dish out. I don't like that anymore than you do, but that is the REALITY of the situation.

The bottom line is, we NEED Washington, Idaho and Northern California to do this. British Columbia and portions of Alaska would also be helpful. In the very least, we need Washington and the morale support of California. Many Oregonians consider California (especially Southern California) as the epitome of everything we are against, but this is an era to cast aside the old rivalry between us because at the very least, California as an ally is better than the alternative - which would be a very powerful enemy on our southern border.

And here's the bottom line - if you REALLY honestly believe in Oregon gaining independence, you need to be supporting Cascadia.

Which means that some of us expect to see you here, if you are truly serious about your convictions:


Besides, Cascadia IS Oregon. It's only the Amerikans and the Canadians who think it isn't.
Oregon IS Cascadia
Oregon IS Cascadia
Cascadia IS Oregon
Cascadia IS Oregon
One Cascadia!
One Cascadia!

an added note 11.Aug.2005 01:53


THe US would not be stopped putting down a small group of rebellious Oregonians. The US would claim it as an internal matter and that all other nation-state but out of US domestic affairs.

Though this idea is not broadly accepted by other Cascadians, but I will again propose this:

The US controlled parts of Cascadia should seek annexation with British Columbia to be a special province in Canada for the first few years of breaking from the US. This would be done only on a trial basis to see if we can work or like to work within Canada to make a new democracy and for building greater peace and prosperity in North America. The ultimate reason I push this (and often alone) is that Canada is a NATO country with NATO protection through the North Atlantic alliance. If the US attempted incursion or counter actions against a newly extended member of NATO it would have almost all of NATO on its neck. This would cause either a reconfiguration of NATO in an age of "terrorism" (blowback for Amerikan Imperialism) that would help Cascadia or UN troops to occupy Cascadian-US border until the US has either faded into history or deminished as a threat. Also as an annexed member into a NATO member the European Union maybe willing to support us with a needed economic plan similar to the Marshall Plan to reconvert our economy into a sustainable economy as an example of what other secessionist regions in the US could be offered. Of course this is my suggestion and all this would be a gamble.

my plan for creating and managing 11.Aug.2005 09:47

an entire fictional country for the next 100 years

Much of what is on this page is confused and absurd, but I have realized that in spending any time commenting on it I simply share in the problem. It is difficult to write about this subject without sounding obsessive and deluded.

on the contrary ^ 11.Aug.2005 10:34


sounds good to me... a vivisection sch as the C.I.S. of breakoff old USSR bloc states.....

sounds like the future ...

is everyone 11.Aug.2005 10:49


to arm themselves, and become proficient with said arms? Standing around waving cardboard signs, chanting, and doing interpretive dance will not accomplish anything, aside from making yourselves into easy targets. Look to the Swiss model, nearly all community events include target shooting, mandatory national service, mandatory ownership and maintenence of personal arms.

How many of you frequent readers and posters own arms? Know how to use them effectively?
Get real.

We would be slaughtered, but 11.Aug.2005 11:39


that is no reason not to put forth the plan in a real and do-able way. Simply mobilizing enough folks with the intent of cessestion would create a storm of world wide attention on the US and the issues that led to the action. That might be all we need to make a huge difference in how our present country is run.

Worldwide 11.Aug.2005 12:43


certainly seems to be helping the people of Iraq, isnt it nice to live in a world where cooler heads generally prevail.

- 11.Aug.2005 14:28



question 11.Aug.2005 20:32


Hey...Have you guys ever heard of something called the Civil War? That was fought because the entire south-eastern portion of the United States decided that since they didn't share the same ideals as the rest of the country, they would secede from the nation. Do you guys even know what you are talking about? Yea, Oregon may be different from the rest of the nation, but think about it...48 states versus 2 maybe 3. Who do you think is going to win that battle? Not to sound like a smarta**, but if you don't like this country so much, just leave it, because to secede from the nation, the US won't give up without a fight. History and current events prove that.

Unite 11.Aug.2005 22:28


Anyone ever hear of Anarchist/Revolutionary militias? Certainly not in recent times...maybe it's something that should be examined. A solid alliance between Anarchist, Black Panther, and American Indian Movement revolutionaries might be a good starting point...
Ruckus Society recently had a skillshare and training which involved members of radical Native American activists.


response to "question" 11.Aug.2005 23:40


Well someone, we all know of the civil war in this country and I am sure we know of other civil wars in other countries too. But there are also other famous "break ups" less violent like the Velvet Divorce of the Czech Republic and Slovakia or the throwing off the Soviet yoke by the Eastern Bloc during the Velvet Revolutions. Yes we all know the USA would not let go easily right now, but give it an economic collapse, social unrest, high price of oil, a broken army in two endless wars and the USA someday may not be able to say "no". In someways it is now just a matter of time and the will of Cascadians to awaken to what a great future they could grasp. Let us see if Cindy Sheehan can give the ursuper emporer the humility he needs. Let us see what will transpire in the next couple of months. Let us watch as state rights are systematically undermined. Let us watch as a two front war becomes even more unbareable. Let us watch as high fuel prices will be reflected in the cost of food, transportation, clothing, heating and other aspects of living. Let us watch as the Fascist play games of mock disasters while the terrorist alert colors flash different colors. Let us watch what would happen if martial law is proclaimed. Let us watch all this or better let us become aware and share our concern to eventually rise up and throw the yoke of corporatist slavery off our necks. If we are an insightful and wise people then it is only a matter of time. If we are sheep then we will find that out too.

re; response to "question" 12.Aug.2005 00:00

Ecotopian Yeti

Just remember that Afghanistan was a bllody blackhole for the Soviets. When they were done in Afghanistan they were not ready for dealing with the Velvet Revolutions in the late 1980s. It was not until Chechnya in the late 90s that the Russians were foolish to stick they military back in a bottomless pit of a guerilla war.

just can't see it happening 12.Aug.2005 04:43

but it is a great idea

It would have a better chance if we had state politicians with some spine willing to take a stand against the war, federal taxation and get off the federal teet. Independence starts with leadership and getting viable leadership without elected representatives is not going to happen. But politicians with ANY clue are impossible to find. If that happened and governors actually called for a referendum (or we started one with the support of the local governments) we could simply vote to get out of the US. HAHA! A breakaway set of states democratically deciding to throw in the towel...I wonder how Washington DC would be able to spin that as something to kill us for?

Secession: Economics, Culture, War and Peace. 12.Aug.2005 10:16

Collin S. Ferguson savepac17@yahoo.com

In all of the discussions so far, it seems to me that people are most concerned about what kind of response the United States will have to Oregonian, Washingtonian, Californian, Cascadian, Pacifican secession. This is where we should reach out to our history books and read more about the process and arduous work the American forefathers did (unfortunately, their creation turned into Amerika). We should also look at how the nation of India managed to fight off the grips of England (yes, there was violence, but the fear tatics did not stop the resolve of the Indian people and now they have their own nation and so does Pakistan).

We can discuss what would make a logical country, and what would we do if we were surrounded by American power, but to me this is almost counter productive. We should relax and do what the West Coast people do best-- chill out. Yes, we must remain active in our pursuit, but we also must understand that secession takes careful planning and therefore, years to accomplish.

The United States also has some major problems on its hands. First it is war and the peak oil crisis. Energy will soon be so expensive that major econmic down fall and maybe food famines could be coming your way. That's why you have to thank Governor Kulongoski for passing legislation that will create a major bio-fuel industry in the state of Oregon. The first plant in Portland, OR was finished eariler this summer and the second in now under construction. Either way, the U.S. is making a lot of enemies around the world, and many of these enemies are starving for energy, and many of the markets of these enemies that are starving for energy are flooded with Amerikan dollars, which means as we fall more and more into unilateralism, Amerika could find itself in many wars (both violent and nonviolent, but all equally economically damaging), and an energy crisis, and a market crash. In the end, it would be best advised that the western states secede, but also, we might not see much of a counter attack from the U.S. If we are paitent and allow the U.S. to drown in its own bull pucky, and at the same time, prepare oursleves for the move, then becoming a new nation may not be as difficult than originally thought.

In addition, it is very important to consider our Canadian neighbors to the north. I am the creater of the SavePac Yahoo Group, which supports the secession of the entire west coast, and recently I posted an article which stated that nearly one-third of a surveyed population of British Columbians are willing to consider secession from the confederation of Canada. Forty percent of the surveyed population of Alberta is willing to consider secession (although their are Albertan groups what would rather create a confederacy with Montana than B.C. or other west coast states). We are just in the beginning of discussing secession, but B.C. and Alberta are well advanced on the issue. In other words, we need to advance our talks with B.C. and possibly Alberta (So, has anyone started a Vancouver Indy Media discussion about Cascadian or Pacifican secession? I haven't and I probably should).

In the end, we need to realize that time is on our side. The power of the U.S. is beginning to wain, and our power is on the rise. Did you know that a combined economy of Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California would be a top 5 economy in the world? How is the U.S. really going to battle with us if we can get the local economy on our side? I am all for creating meetings and establishing a non-profit organization that is more interested in researching and discussing this issue. I also want to invite you all to the SavePac Yahoo Group. So far, the SavePac Yahoo group has worked as an excellent forum to get news feeds that you usually do not hear in the major Amerikan media--much like how PIMC works. You can subscribe by email at  savepac-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. I also want to start chat discussions (unfortunately, I can't meet with anyone in person yet, as I am going to school at Rutgers University in New Jersey. I graduate in January, and during my time here I have learned that west coast culture is much different than east coast culture-- their beer sucks too.).

So, my final words are keep up the good work, be patient, and let the energy of Mother Earth be your guide. We will secede-- it will happen-- someday, soon.

Collin S. Ferguson

to Collin S. Ferguson 12.Aug.2005 11:29



"In all of the discussions so far, it seems to me that people are most concerned about what kind of response the United States" ... "This is where we should reach out to our history books" Did you not read all the thread? Ah there was mention of other break ups in history specifically the velvet revolutions.

response to "question" 13.Aug.2005 00:06


Don't you all just *love* it when Amerikans attempt to write off an idea by pulling the "love it, or leave it" suggestion as "someone" has just done.

Well, "someone", the reason we don't leave is simple. We LIVE HERE and most of us who support Cascadian Re-Unification and Disengagement were also born here. To take it a little further, many of us have DEEP ancestrial roots in Cascadia. There are people who support this idea whose ancestors have lived in Cascadia for THOUSANDS of years, while many of us have Cascadian roots that go back to the time BEFORE it was ruled over by the United States or Canada. Regardless of your ancestrial roots in the region, if you live here, you are ENTITLED as a human being, to the right to live in your homeland and to not be driven away by an oppressive government or contrary minded people. And to go one step further, regardless of where you make your home, you are OBLIGATED to protect your home and others who live there through any means that are necessary. (And right now, the entire West Coast is being regularly victimized and destroyed by an oppressive government located over 2500 miles away). Nor are those necessarily implanted nationalistic ideas, but simply human nature.

We don't leave simply because we are CASCADIANS. It's really that simple.

And to go one step further, it's not the minority that feels this way. Even the most conservative Oregon natives consider themselves an Oregonian before they consider themselves as an American and the same mentality holds true among people in Washington, Idaho and California. People who don't are typically transplants from elsewhere. As well, a majority find the concept of self-rule very appealing and as a general rule, even if they are patriotic in the American sense, despise their government. The only thing that holds them back is fear.

And believe me, most of us DO know what we are talking about. We're not a bunch of "green" kids who think that it's just a cool idea. The fact is, some of us have spent YEARS studying the subject and some of us have also put our physical well-being on the line for the sake of our beliefs.

I do tend to think that your statement "the US won't give up without a fight" is probably true, despite the fact that they are incredibly disorganized and weak at the moment. That is also why some of us think that Oregon Secession alone is a very bad idea (though we do support its secession). Oregon Secession by itself would likely be a human and ecological disaster and it would be a tremendous risk if Oregon did it alone. Even the combination of Oregon, Washington and Idaho would be very difficult (made more difficult if British Columbia came along, since we would then be dealing with Canada too).

Ultimately, this is why co-operation with likeminded groups in California (which are better established and more widely accepted than we are) is an absolutely necessity. California is the key to it all simply because California is not only our neighbor (and as much conflict as has existed between Cascadians and Californians, we still have more in common with each other than either of us have with, say North Dakota, Texas or Ohio). The main point is the fact that California is the most econonimcally powerful, most productive and most populous state in the United States. Of California's 250 main areas of production, it leads the U.S. in over 65 of them and is 2nd or 3rd in over 150 others. As Collin Ferguson pointed out:

"(the) combined economy of Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California would be a top 5 economy in the world"

As far as I know, that's actually an underestimation, since statistics I've seen that cite it as the "5th most powerful" economy typically don't include Alaska or the Yukon and they also don't take into consideration what the U.S. would lose.

And ultimately, it's the loss that is the key. The United States really cannot survive on its own without us, so in addition to living free, we will also be doing the world at large a very big favor by breaking the back of the United Fascist States of America. And after that, it will fragment into dozens (if not hundreds) of micro-states much like the Eastern Bloc did in the early 90's based upon the will of smaller groups of people.

It's a win-win situation.

It will take years... 13.Aug.2005 14:03


If not decades. But if we all continue to move foreward with the idea it WILL happen.

Personally, I like the idea of electing Cascadians to local and state positions in government.

There is enough support out there for Cascadia and the North West way of life that if we fielded people for mayor, commisioner and legeslater I would bet that he or she would have a damn good chance of winning...

Especially if we all threw our support behind someone like that.

Here in PDX we wouldn't need massive amounts of cash to field a canidate... just people like us constantly reminding people, everywhere we go, that there is an option to the corporate lackies and chickenhawk goombahs.

if it takes years or decades it will not happen 13.Aug.2005 21:17


if it takes years or decades it will not happen. simply because politicians and corporations will slowly undermine the systems. eventually they would present a biased image of cascadia as some racist male dominant bunch of nuts even though if you actually meet most people who identify themselves as cascadians they tend to be female and very much into social justice and anti-hierarchal. if cascadia is to become something more than a bioregion it will happen suddenly out of a series of criseses like states right, the draft, collapse of the economy and destruction of the middle class. what it will take is critcal mass.

for anyone on wikipedia.. 13.Aug.2005 22:44


I've created a [[Category:Cascadian Wikipedian]] you can tag to your userpage. Inevitably someone is going to argue that it should be deleted, but being an administrator myself, there'll probably be a period of hesitation before that happens. In the meantime I'd appreciate anyone on Wikipedia adding the tag so as to make it look like there's more of a reason for having one, and help to legitimize the Cascadian identity sitewide.

Response to AA 13.Aug.2005 23:14


I think your idea of electing Cascadians to public office is a good one, even if we must start out small.

There are lots of towns and small cities where there are so few candidates, that some positions are essentially open to whoever is willing to run. The Green Party has had major success getting some of those offices simply by bothering to act where others don't. And some success has been had in certain portions of PDX and other major cities, as well.

Right now, third party and independent registration is really on the rise right now. In Oregon, this is the fastest growing group of voters and is starting to hurt the popularity Republicrats. (Without George Bu$h on the ballot, I'm sure that many of those who voted Democrat really would have voted Green, Libertarian, Independent or other if they didn't feel that getting rid of Bu$h was most important).

Though that could take years to do it this way, it is a great back up plan and an even greater way to spread the concept of Cascadia simply because those in positions of power (no matter how small or insignificant) have the ear of local/regional media to spread their ideas.

That's one thing we are really missing right now.

But I agree with BB, that in years or decades it will probably be too late.

We need action/organization now, both on the activist and local political fronts.

response to Nagasaki 14.Aug.2005 00:40


With the exception of a violent revolution, politics seems to me like the worst direction to head in. For one thing, as an anarchist, it's the least inspiring for me. Politics is the last thing I want to have to think about, and frankly I wouldn't care to fight for one bureaucracy over another. It also would fail miserably. Even Quebec is some distance from achieving independence, and they have the benefit of proportional representation. In a plurality system, it just won't happen. The government has always tried to get people to channel their efforts into government, because they know it's worthless. Take that route and you're right, Cascadia will never achieve independence, or will take a number of decades to do so.

The best direction, I feel, is first to establish a Cascadian identity. Which means you need totems of whatever kind of can manage. Flags, Louie Louie, native species, anything you can muster up to establish the realization of a common bioregion and a common people. What needs to be done is to get people to consider themselves foremost as Cascadians, rather than Americans or Canadians. I think the region in general spawns that sort of attitude in general. As far back as I can remember I considered myself Oregonian much more quickly than American. I don't think that's an uncommon attitude in the region, and its one that foremost needs to be shown as an acceptable course of action. I think it makes most sense to rally people to the effort, and when the movement is strong enough, and people can feel comfortable enough in their organized strength to want to resist, employ measures of civil disobedience.

"No bucks, no Buck Rogers"... 14.Aug.2005 11:52

Pravda or Consequences

Trade is essential to sustaining a civilization. We need to have schools, hospitals, waste treatment facilities, etc. We may also find ourselves in need of material security. These things cost money to build and maintain.

Because different people will have different ideas about what it means to be Cascadian, we need a consitutional convention, "in order to form a more perfect union".

We need to be realistic enough to appreciate the formable challenges before us and the determination to overcome them.

We have nothing to lose.

For Owen ... 15.Aug.2005 23:29


I actually know EXACTLY where you are coming from and a year ago, I too really thought that politics was the worst direction to consider as a viable option. A year ago, if you would have asked me, I would have also said that government was the last thing that Cascadia (or anywhere) needs. As far as I was concerned, we could all go back to living in log cabins (wherever we choosed), growing/raising our own food, burning our money, quitting our jobs and going back to the barter system and just doing "our own thing" like our ancestors did. I'm still for that and I'm still striving for that for myself, but about 8-9 months ago a realization suddenly hit me -

Most people don't want to do it this way and there are more of them, than there are us. For them, what I consider a perfect, simpler world is not a very pleasant world and most of them would NOT survive. As one example, my father in law really loses his mind if he doesn't have cable TV and is pretty much lost without it. I can't even begin to understand that mentality (my remedy would be to put my foot through the damn thing, once and for all), but I accept the fact that most people have a mentality/idealogy/belief system that I consider completely backward and that for the most part, they can't really help it and will always be that way.

I'll just submit that there are millions of people living in Cascadia and most of them would be lost without leaders (politicians). They feel that they need someone to tell them what they are supposed to think or do with their lives. Now that would NEVER be me and it will probably NEVER be you either, but without the majority, we're never going to truly live free in Cascadia simply because we need the majority to support Cascadia.

And I hate to say it, but to get the support of the majority, we need political candidates out there to convince/represent the majority.

I'm not suggesting that this is THE way to create a Free Cascadia, simply because there are as many ways of doing it as whatever there is that works. And we should be using any method we can that works.

well.. 16.Aug.2005 03:08


Well, I'm not advocating this whole area becoming some kind of anarchist experiment, because as you say, I don't think you could garner popular support for that kind of thing. I'm not saying I'm againt a Cascadian government, I'm in fact fully in favor of such a concept. Of course I can't imagine supporting whatever government was arranged, but I might at least feel a bit less alienated from the system. But I do think the establishment of a government is a correct step. What I don't believe is that it's the first. What first needs to happen is bring it to popular attention. The first thing to do this is to establish regional solidarity through symbolism. Most people aren't going to buy into the idea of secession until they can be convinced of a certain security in doing so. The movement needs to prove its seriousness before you can convince people to put themselves behind it.

Start a single Cascadian political party and you'll already be alienating people, since you'll be establishing the base political ideas of an as-yet inexistent state, or you'll be working on such a single-issue campaign you'll never attract support. The US does not offer proporotional representation, and the political system is designed to stomp 3rd parties. I voted a 3rd party in the last election, but have since realized the futility in such an attempt, and with it the futility in voting. Any vote is a vote for the system, but for real change what is necessary is alienation from that system. Effort spent towards the impossible is effort not exerted towards the task at hand. Voting is a means of reducing political opinions to a number, the rationalization of though into basic statistics. The only vote with meaning is the one not cast. Our politics need to be the politics of the streets, and not those of the ballot. With enough strength, neighborhoods in the major cities can effectively break off. Either the federal government will attempt to intervene (against civil disobedience, people in their own homes), creating such an atrocity to help establish regional solidarity, or the government will choke on their own bureaucracy and hesitate in calculating its response. If the latter occurs, this would suggest to Cascadians some degree of stability in the movement, and a symbolic victory, which could be used to revigorate the movement.

For Owen, again 17.Aug.2005 01:21


Well, I think you've brought up EXACTLY the problem with the current Amerikan political system and the sort of thing that we need to avoid IF we were to form a Cascadian Independence party.

The problem with traditional parties is that their members tow the party line. If you take Republicans as a whole, 99% of them support their party idealogy. 99% of them want a stronger military, to illegalize abortion even in circumstances when it's probably a necessity. Same goes for Democrats, who tow their party line. Or Libertarians, Socialists or even Greens. It's all about unifying under the same basic beliefs all across the board. As you pointed out, that can only serve to divide a population. IF (and nobody has really discussed this) we were to form a Cascadian Independence Party, it really should try to avoid that by encouraging membership from across the Cascadian spectrum vs. a single group of Cascadians. That is to say that it should be composed of people from different walks of life, different upbringings, etc. who simply share a profound love, respect and pride for Cascadia and its independence. The closest thing, by comparison is probably the new Respect Party here in the UK, in that it's really just a group of people/candidates who come from different backgrounds, have different idealogies and different focuses, but are unified in a quest for responsible government in this country. That's kind of a fresh concept, but it's been very popular and they've gained a lot of support in the UK. Isuspect that it wasn't easy to pull off, but it's a better model than what usually goes on.

As far as voting (or not voting) third party, I think the problem is, people have fallen into this idea that it's about winners and losers opposed to simply voting for what (or who) you believe in. I had a lot of friends/relatives who in the last (s)election voted for Kerry yet they hated his fucking guts. 3/4 of them actually supported Nader, while the rest were scattered between Green and Libertarian. They would say "I really like Ralph Nader and I think he is the man for the job", but yet they voted for Kerry simply because they didn't want Bu$h to win. I tried to convince them to do otherwise, but they seemed to think that beating Bu$h was more important than voting with their heart. (When in reality, Kerry is just as bad as Bu$h, so what was the point?)

And they did it because they were convinced that their candidate of choice did not stand a snowballs chance in hell at winning. And THAT is why third parties do not win, because people vote for the lesser of two evils in order to beat the greater evil. I'll simply submit that if for ONCE, every one who supported third parties (or non parties) actually voted for their preference opposed to the lesser of the two great evils, the Republicrats would be stunned.

As an example, according to data published by the Oregonian in 2000, voter registration in Oregon that was neither of the two major parties represents about 25% of the registered voters in the state. They went further to say that this is the fastest growing group in Oregon. With that in mind, that means that the two major parties are splitting 75%. If they share it evenly, that means they have 32.5% each, but Democrats probably outnumber Republicans. With that in mind, if the people registered as "other" all voted for what they believe in and actually showed up to vote, we are talking about a tremendous show of force that would probably scare the hell out of the big two, especially if a candidate in one of those two parties was an especially unpopular one. In theory, if people would just break out of the "Third parties can't win" idealogy, they could beat one of the two main parties. And when that happens, that could swing voters the next time out.

Imagine what that would do?

But it's only going to happen if people change their ways and start to follow their hearts or idealogy.

We need hawaii too 21.Aug.2005 18:03

A secessionist

I believe the people of Hawaii will be as much and mabye even more defensive of their homeland when Amerika finishes becoming a dictatorship. Remember, they didn't even have a choice to join Amerika in the first place! We need them for support in this fight. We can't have Amerikans in Hawaii breathing down our west side. We need them badly.