Referendum: Many Puerto Ricans have no clue, but majority supports status quo

[Tender Branson]

Most Puerto Ricans agree with current U.S. relationship

San Juan –  Fifty-one percent of Puerto Ricans want to maintain the island's current relationship with the United States, according to poll results published Tuesday in San Juan's El Nuevo Dia.

A non-binding question on the island's future status will be on the ballot when Puerto Ricans go to the polls Nov. 6 to elect their next governor and their non-voting representative in the U.S. Congress.

Of the 1,000 people surveyed by El Nuevo Dia, 37 percent are in favor of modifying the current status, 6 percent are not sure, another 4 percent said they will not go to the polls and the remaining 2 percent refused to answer.

The survey also reflects that among the alternatives to the current commonwealth status, the most popular is that of the Sovereign Free Association, supported by 45 percent of respondents.

While 36 percent said they will vote for U.S. statehood, 5 percent favor independence, 9 percent said they would not vote, another 4 percent are unsure and 1 percent refused to take part in the study.

The pollsters found that 45 percent of Puerto Ricans do not understand what the different options really mean.

El Nuevo Dia said that the latter figure makes it clear that both the island's parties and the State Elections Commission must step up their efforts to educate the public.

The non-binding referendum in November includes, besides a "yes" or "no" choice about maintaining the current relationship with the United States, a second question asking voters to choose either statehood, independence or Sovereign Free Association, also known as "enhanced" commonwealth status.

Puerto Ricans have gone to the polls three times in the past 45 years to weigh in on the status question.

The first referendum, in 1967, produced a majority of just over 60 percent in favor of remaining a U.S. commonwealth. In 1993, support for commonwealth status had shrunk to a 48.6 percent plurality.

Five years later, 50.3 percent of Puerto Ricans casting ballots rejected all three options - statehood, independence and commonwealth - and checked the box marked "none of the above."

Puerto Rico came under Washington's sway in 1898 and island residents were granted U.S. citizenship in 1917, yet they cannot vote in presidential elections, though Puerto Ricans living in the continental United States can.

Since 1952, the island has been a self-governing, unincorporated territory of the United States with broad internal autonomy, but without the right to conduct its own foreign policy.

The New Progressive Party of incumbent Gov. Luis Fortuño favors U.S. statehood for Puerto Rico. The main opposition Popular Democratic Party advocates enhanced commonwealth status.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/05/08/most-puerto-ricans-agree-with-current-us-relationship/#ixzz1uJc5BKc9

[greenforest32]

So what happens if a majority supports maintaining the current relationship and no option on the second question gets a majority?

Are we going to wait more years for another referendum or will the PR government propose something else?

Also: how do we think Puerto Rico will vote in Presidential elections and for its two senators if it becomes the 51st state?

[ag]

PR would be fairly reliably Dem in the US elections. Once the statehood is decided for, it is very unlikely that this would remain an issue, so there will be a natural realignment in the local politics. This would mean a split in the NPP, with a large minority of its members and activists joining w/ PDP to form the dominant Puerto Rico Democratic party and the rest of NPP becoming a semi-permanent opposition.

[Simfan34]

But that would be odd, considering most of PR's senior officials right now are NPP and Republican.

[ag]

But that would be odd, considering most of PR's senior officials right now are NPP and Republican.

Yes, because the main fault line in PR politics today is, whether to become a state or not: NPP is for statehood and PDP is for the Commonwealth. However, once that fault line is removed, national politics would take precedence, at least in federal elections. True, at present it appears that Republicans are dominant in the NPP. This is why I am saying that it will only a minority of NPP will go into Puerto Rico Democratic Party. Nevertheless, it's going to be a large minority - and, given that PDP will merge into the Dem party wholesale, this will be the dominant party in PR.

I could imagine that NPP and PDP would, actually, retain their identities for the state-level elections . But in Federal races the national two-party logic will impose itself.

[ChairmanSanchez]

I really wish we let Puerto Rico go whether they want to or not...frankly, the money spent on upgrading its infrastructure would not be worth it. Can someone elaborate on what "enhanced" Commonwealth is??

[True Federalist]

I really wish we let Puerto Rico go whether they want to or not...frankly, the money spent on upgrading its infrastructure would not be worth it. Can someone elaborate on what "enhanced" Commonwealth is??

Probably something like what Belau, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia have.

[ag]

I really wish we let Puerto Rico go whether they want to or not...frankly, the money spent on upgrading its infrastructure would not be worth it. Can someone elaborate on what "enhanced" Commonwealth is??

Probably something like what Belau, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia have.

Those are independent UN members.

[fezzyfestoon]

My guess at this point would be Maryland-like results in Puerto Rico.

[Meeker]

I get that this is an important decision that the population should have final say on, but complex ballot initiatives are generally always a bad idea. Voters are rarely well-educated on them.

The Puerto Rican legislature should pass whatever solution they want and then give the population an option for a thumbs up or thumbs down.

[jimrtex]

I really wish we let Puerto Rico go whether they want to or not...frankly, the money spent on upgrading its infrastructure would not be worth it. Can someone elaborate on what "enhanced" Commonwealth is??

I think it means that it is hard to defend "we believe in the same old same old".

It also presumes that Congress would approve the "enhancements".

[ChairmanSanchez]

I really wish we let Puerto Rico go whether they want to or not...frankly, the money spent on upgrading its infrastructure would not be worth it. Can someone elaborate on what "enhanced" Commonwealth is??

Probably something like what Belau, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia have.

Those are independent UN members.

If it is like that, then I would support it.

[True Federalist]

I really wish we let Puerto Rico go whether they want to or not...frankly, the money spent on upgrading its infrastructure would not be worth it. Can someone elaborate on what "enhanced" Commonwealth is??

Probably something like what Belau, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia have.

Those are independent UN members.

If it is like that, then I would support it.

Nah, we still subsidize all three, provide for their defense, etc. The main difference is that they have internal autonomy, so Congress can't override their laws like it can with the territories.