[identity profile] chron-job.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
An interesting, if under reported result of last night's elections.

Puerto Rico just voted for statehood.


In a 2 part referendum, they voted for a change of status over the status quo (54% to 46%) and Statehood over 'Sovereign Free Association', or Independence (61%, over 33% and 5% respectively.)

Do you think this is likely to come to pass in the next few years? Critics say the referendum's split nature made it "confusing" to the point that it will be unconvincing to congress, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Currently people in Puerto Rico are considered citizens, but they can't vote for presidents, and they have no real voice in Congress. If they were made a state, being between Connecticut and Oklahoma in population, we'd expect them to have 5 seats in the House of Representatives, and 7 electoral votes. If they become a state, what does THAT do to your demographic calculations?

My own thought is that short term self interest will lead the Republicans in congress to hem, haw, delay, and oppose this, because of the obvious political implications. House Democrats ought to support it... both for short term political gain, and because it is in-line with both party, and, I feel, generally American, principles.

But mostly, this is just one more little pebble on the large scale that says "Republican Party, DIVERSIFY OR DIE!"

*** Edit *** 15:13
EST For those interested in the mechanics, and example of the plebiscite is on page 7 of this PDF. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42765.pdf

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 18:24 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com
then they should get those people to vote. Because doing the opposite is ABSOLUTELY disenfranchisement.

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 18:27 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
How would you suggest that be done? Bribe them? Force them? Why not simply respect their abstention and move forward?

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 18:36 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com
that's a matter for the Puerto Rican people, and we should not interfere.

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 18:44 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
Does your level of "non-interference" go so far as denying Puerto Rico statehood until they get a more robust plebiscite?

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 18:47 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com
it goes as far as not forcing statehood on a community that cannot get over 50% affirmative agreement on doing so.

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 18:57 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
Good point. Statehood is such a terrible thing to impose on people, especially when they do not vote.

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 19:00 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com
you can try to make amusing quips all you want; not everyone wants to be an American. Just because they did not vote in this particular referendum doesn't mean that you can simply ignore that.

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 19:02 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
Not voting in the referendum does not mean that they do not want to be part of the US, unless you have a good reason to suggest otherwise.

(no subject)

Date: 8/11/12 19:05 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com
not voting in the referendum does not mean that they DO, either. And that's my point. Without knowing, we should not change the status quo.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
910 1112 131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Summary