Printable View
http://www.chron.com/news/world/arti...or-4012422.php
I think from reading that. Never too keen on two-part referendums as its less clear.
This would obviously require approval from the US Congress, how likely is that to be forthcoming and what sort of timescale could be expected? Could race be a factor in that decision? It'd certainly add a lot more Latino's in one sweep to the Presidential election.
Curious to see how a 51-State Stars and Stripes would look too.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
..★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
..★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
..★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
EDIT:
hey, its your favorite website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_flag_51_stars.svg
I think this one looks better, but the 51 example above is how they did the 49 star one
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9...35avo1_500.jpg
With such a relatively small majority in favor of changing the relationship, I doubt Congress will act on this... especially since it will hand the Democrats several more seats in Congress and a few electors for president.
If you do the math, you'll see that 34.5% voted for statehood...
It was a two part referendum. Which means that people who didn't want a change voted saying if they're gonna change, they want statehood. So it's still 65%.
Republicans have been pretty open to Puerto Rico becoming a state in the past. They'll probably drag their feet on it, but I'm still expecting Congress to approve their entry into the union.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Not entirely certain that would be the case in an in-or-out referendum, Loki. These multipart plebiscites are challenging to interpret in terms of how they represent actual public opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I would imagine there's some way to sort this out with e.g. game theory given an appropriately phrased set of questions, but I doubt this was it. It might be able to suggest an optimal outcome that would leave everyone least disgruntled.
The point is that 2/3 of Puerto Ricans who voted didn't want statehood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Are you honestly going to claim that anyone who voted NO to change of status really wanted statehood?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Given that 65% voted for Statehood, I find that claim incredulous. Given the set-up of the questions this was a vote in favour of Statehood ... I don't know about the US but there is precedent of these sort of two-question referendums elsewhere and this would be taken to be a Yes from the setup. Yes won both rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Simplest way to sort that out if it remains the question is a follow-up one-question referendum. "Do you want statehood: Yes/No". I do not believe from these results two-thirds would vote No.
Republicans have already got a major problem with under-performing with Hispanics. Given they've been publicly open to Puerto Rico becoming a state in the past if that's what the populace wants, if they suddenly block it now then I don't see that winning them any favours at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
I agree that Mitt Romney came out very publicly in favor of Puerto Rican statehood, as did a number of other Republicans. Kudos to them for integrity. However, when push comes to shove and it became a potential reality, I don't know if Congressional Republicans would vote for it. They'd be looking at losing another 2 seats in the Senate and 7 seats (IIRC?) in the House.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Multiple choice (and multiple question) referenda are notoriously difficult to understand in terms of the actual best outcome that will satisfy most people. It's simple math; having a ranking system would help significantly, but even that is far from ideal. But the data suggests that if a change in status were to occur, a significant majority would favor statehood. I don't doubt that more of those who voted against a change in status chose something like 'sovereign free association' than any other choice, but clearly some of them chose statehood or left it blank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Huh, I had been following the Puerto Rican gubernatorial election a bit but didn't even know this was on the ballot.
I'm supportive of Puerto Rico becoming a state, however I'm wary of the fact that it's a bit of a baksetcase that would be prone to substantially upsetting the political balance. That said, I think it's the right thing to do in the long-run if Puerto Ricans want for it. There are millions of American citizens there living in a political netherworld.
Though I would prefer a referendum directly on this issue, instead of a tiered approach. A good friend from the PR is highly opposed to statehood and wants independence. He's so adamant about it I basically don't bring it up. But I think the question has to be asked as directly as possible.
I think it should be a state, in theory.
However, they'll just constantly help to elect democrats, and that's not good for our democracy.
Isn't it by definition good for our democracy? Right now we have 5 million-odd citizens with no representation in federal politics. Having both parties have to compete for the votes of all American citizens strikes me as a fundamentally good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
That doesn't mean statehood is the necessary outcome, but definitely a change from the status quo.
Is something good for democracy when the majority of those affected don't want it?
You don't have enough information to make that claim.
Removing the electoral college would help much more in making each person's vote count. Further, I don't see much competition for votes in, say, California. So, with the current system, all making Puerto Rico a state would do is make it impossible for a Republican to be elected President. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
It being "that something", or democracy? I assume you mean "that something", and no, I don't think that's always the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not statehood specifically, but changing the status quo to give them more democracy? I think that a clear majority wants that. Either through statehood, or independence, or greater autonomy. Self-determination is an unmitigated good in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
First, keeping or dumping the electoral college has nothing to do with Puerto Rico, but I have no issue with direct elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Second, I think it's absurd that a reason to keep 5 million citizens from voting in our elections is because it would make the current positions of a political party untenable. Isn't that the point of democracy?
"Clear majority" = 53%?
The final result was an 8 point spread. As I mentioned earlier it's not a landslide (and thus not likely to get much urgency in Congress), but it definitely counts as a clear majority. It also had ~77% voter participation which is pretty damned good for an American election.
The second question is a much more nuanced issue, since there were nearly half a million blank ballots.
In Russia, there are no territories where someone can't vote, and it is a popular vote. It is, however, missing any sort of political debate because they basically have one viable party.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Also, Gaza Strip.
*runs*
I think you mean the West Bank. And I agree that they need democratic representation or self-determination. Ditto for Russia, but that has less to do with representation/independence and more to do with good democratic institutions to form a relatively clean multiparty system.
Gaza Strip, as it's run by Hamas... they were voted in!Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Yeah, but I'm just presenting here a sort of other end of the coin. "Everyone" votes, but there's no political discussion. That component is really necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Well if you look at the history of the Netherlands Antilles you get a good idea of what hornet' s nest the status of overseas territories can be. The establishment of the Netherlands Antilles was intended to be the start of an easing into independence of the six islands it consists of. Now the 'land' has evaporated and what we are facing now is;
two islands with a government that sort of function if you don't set your standards too high, one island with a dysfunctional government that both wants independence and money from the motherland to make up for the holes in its budget (with the same people who vote for the party that want independence by and large being against independence) and three islands after having chosen full integration with the motherland in a referendum whining without end that the laws made in the parliament they actually also vote for hold in the islands without any restriction. (One example would be that they think that same-sex marriage somehow doesn't exist overthere). BTW all the people living in the islands are Dutch citizens.
It does sound very similar. But wait, what happened to four of the islands?
Global warming. :o
Adds up doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Somehow I skimmed past all of that in favor of what Loki was also imagining. :p
Basically I think I can say that when it comes to PR you lot are just as fucked as we are over our remaining territories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught