Is a new referendum on statehood now a certainty in Puerto Rico?

[Lunar]

You really want the Democrats to have 7-8 more electoral votes?

*backpats*
I have a great counterpoint to this,:

1)  They're American citizens, their colony is larger than many states.  If they want to have full representation, who are you to say they shouldn't just because they favor the Democrats?

2) Face it, the GOP will never have any chance in the future unless they figure out how to talk to non-white people -- the most upwardly economically mobile and traditionalist of whom are Hispanics and Asians -- eventually the GOP will need to appeal to  Hispanics.  Your party is doomed if they can't figure it out.  This could be a kick in the ass.

3) C'mon man, that flag is sweet.  Most elections aren't decided by 8 EV's and the whole "democratic representation" thing surely outweighs partisan interests?

[muon2]

You really want the Democrats to have 7-8 more electoral votes?

*backpats*
I have a great counterpoint to this,:

1)  They're American citizens, their colony is larger than many states.  If they want to have full representation, who are you to say they shouldn't just because they favor the Democrats?

2) Face it, the GOP will never have any chance in the future unless they figure out how to talk to non-white people -- the most upwardly economically mobile and traditionalist of whom are Hispanics and Asians -- eventually the GOP will need to appeal to  Hispanics.  Your party is doomed if they can't figure it out.  This could be a kick in the ass.

3) C'mon man, that flag is sweet.  Most elections aren't decided by 8 EV's and the whole "democratic representation" thing surely outweighs partisan interests?

I agree with Lunar here (perhaps except for the flag.) History shows that few presidential elections turn on 8 EVs, and the GOP has historically been a strong backer of statehood. I think we would be hypocritical to back off of that long-standing position because of the short-term political events of the election in 2000.

[Lunar]

Muon, you can have this one if you want:



But yeah.  I mean, at some point the GOP is going to have to be a non-white coalition.  George Bush actually did a decent job at starting this trend against Gore and Kerry.  Ironically, McCain, who is one of the most pro-immigration and arguably pro-Hispanic senators in Congress, flopped utterly among all minorities.

That's not the party of the future and I trust the GOP will eventually figure out how to talk to non-white people or fade away.  Puerto Rico might not be a Democratic lock then

[muon2]

Gracias. I like reserving the circular symmetry for the original 13 colonies.

Muon, you can have this one if you want:

[Tender Branson]

The October 2008 telephone survey, the latest Puerto Rico Herald poll to be done on economic, social, status and current issues, involved 1,000 residents throughout the island and has a margin of error of +/- 3%.

34. If there were another status plebiscite and you had to choose, would you choose:

Statehood for Puerto Rico - 46%
Keeping things as they are now - 42%
Moving toward independence for Puerto Rico - 8%
Undecided - 4%

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues2/2008/vol12n01/081102-PuertoRico-Herald.org-Public-Opinion-Survey-November-2008.pdf

From a Puerto Rico Democratic Primary Poll:

"Regardless of the public’s presidential vote preferences in the Democratic primary, Puerto Ricans will favor the Democratic nominee over John McCain. By a 72 to 10 percent margin, survey respondents say they would vote for the Democratic candidate over McCain if they were eligible to vote in the presidential election in November."

http://www.gqrr.com/articles/2200/4379_prun052408m1.pdf

...

Therefore I favor the statehood option ...

[Lunar]

I actually think we should give them two options to vote for:

1) Statehood
2) Independence


and that's it

[Hash]

8% for independence? Jesus, a bit too high no?

I don't have historical results, but I don't recall the PIP getting over 8% in the recent past.

[HappyWarrior]

I actually think we should give them two options to vote for:

1) Statehood
2) Independence


and that's it

I am by the way a hardcore statehooder.

[??????????]

Actually one of the original patterns was a big star.



Not necessarily like that, but with some stars forming the big star and some in the middle, filling it in.

[minionofmidas]

8% for independence? Jesus, a bit too high no?

I don't have historical results, but I don't recall the PIP getting over 8% in the recent past.

Tactical voting; also note that the poll option is "moving towards full independence", not "full independence NOW".

[Bacon King]

I actually think we should give them two options to vote for:

1) Statehood
2) Independence


and that's it

I agree with that. IIRC the commonwealth situation wasn't supposed to be permanent anyway.

[Mr. Morden]

I actually think we should give them two options to vote for:

1) Statehood
2) Independence


and that's it

I agree with that. IIRC the commonwealth situation wasn't supposed to be permanent anyway.

But what's wrong with the Commonwealth situation?  Is there some reason why Puerto Rico should be asked to abandon Commonwealth status if that's the arrangement they favor?  Is the arrangement hurting the mainland US in some way?

[Lunar]

They should be able to have a voice in the United States government and be taxed like the rest of U.S. citizens.  No taxation without representation - I don't see why they should be entitled to a special sub-state status, even if they prefer it.

Should California be able to withdraw and become a Commonwealth if it is economically beneficial to us?  No, that's ridiculous.  Any territory of Puerto Rico's population should have to make the decision as to whether they want to be a full part of the United States or an independent country.

They have a unique culture and history and I would fully support their independence, should they choose it.  I also think that their [future] state could provide a cultural wake-up call to American society should it obtain statehood. 

I don't know all of the technical details between Commonwealth and Statehood, but I don't see why there is an inherent right to Commonwealth status.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It would be quite interesting if the referendum were conducted next year. If successful, the petition for statehood could be acted on by the end of 2010. That's important because the Census figures for the apportionment of representatives will be released at the end of 2010. If PR is a state then it will be part of that process.

Using the projections for the 50 states in 2010, PR would have a population equal to 5.6 representatives. If the House were expanded to 441 members in 2010 along with PR statehood, then PR would likely get 6 seats in the reapportionment.

Another question that could arise at the same time is the status of DC. Would Congress act in 2010 to grant DC a representative along the lines envisioned by the proposed UT-DC plan? I wouldn't be surprised to see DC representation coupled to PR statehood by some in Congress.

If it missed the 2010 deadline, would it have to wait until 2020 to get apportioned?

[A18]

1)  They're American citizens, their colony is larger than many states.  If they want to have full representation, who are you to say they shouldn't just because they favor the Democrats?

Even if we assume democracy to be some kind of "natural law" (a point I dispute), your argument breaks down as soon as you factor in the U.S. Senate. More fundamentally, so long as the franchise consists of the power to ruin the lives and general prosperity of Americans, I see no reason why it ought to be a universal right.

Having said that, I'm not necessarily opposed to Puerto Rican statehood. But the Senate issue does concern me. I guess we could alter the existing state boundaries in order to balance things out; some splits and mergers are desperately needed, anyway.

[Lunar]

1)  They're American citizens, their colony is larger than many states.  If they want to have full representation, who are you to say they shouldn't just because they favor the Democrats?

Even if we assume democracy to be some kind of "natural law" (a point I dispute), your argument breaks down as soon as you factor in the U.S. Senate. More fundamentally, so long as the franchise consists of the power to ruin the lives and general prosperity of Americans, I see no reason why it ought to be a universal right.

Having said that, I'm not necessarily opposed to Puerto Rican statehood. But the Senate issue does concern me. I guess we could alter the existing state boundaries in order to balance things out; some splits and mergers are desperately needed, anyway.

What is the "senate issue" and why would we need to break up other states?

[MODU]

What percentage of Puerto Ricans speak English? I fear Puerto Rican statehood becoming a huge battlefront in the immigration/"English is the national language" war.

That would be the biggest issue.  However, it isn't in PR's best interest to become a state, primarily due to economic reasons.  Their best bet is to remain a Commonwealth and enjoy the protection (and money) under the US umbrella but still enjoy the bit of independence they possess.

[A18]

1)  They're American citizens, their colony is larger than many states.  If they want to have full representation, who are you to say they shouldn't just because they favor the Democrats?

Even if we assume democracy to be some kind of "natural law" (a point I dispute), your argument breaks down as soon as you factor in the U.S. Senate. More fundamentally, so long as the franchise consists of the power to ruin the lives and general prosperity of Americans, I see no reason why it ought to be a universal right.

Having said that, I'm not necessarily opposed to Puerto Rican statehood. But the Senate issue does concern me. I guess we could alter the existing state boundaries in order to balance things out; some splits and mergers are desperately needed, anyway.

What is the "senate issue" and why would we need to break up other states?

Representation is not exactly proportionate to population. Which means that admitting a new state can have an exaggerated policy impact, not traceable to the marginal change in represented citizens.

[Lunar]

Well it was never intended to be.

I don't see what this has to do with Puerto Rico.

[A18]

I agree that it was never intended to be. And so what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It means that admitting Puerto Rico would not be a clear-cut case of making government more representative. Your argument was based on populist rhetoric, no?

[Verily]

8% for independence? Jesus, a bit too high no?

I don't have historical results, but I don't recall the PIP getting over 8% in the recent past.

The typical answer is that there are a fair number of pro-independence people who tactically vote for the PPD and for the commonwealth.

The PIP lost its lone top-up representation in the lower house of the PR legislature this year.

[Lunar]

I agree that it was never intended to be. And so what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It means that admitting Puerto Rico would not be a clear-cut case of making government more representative. Your argument was based on populist rhetoric, no?

I was just saying a population that size of U.S. citizens on U.S. territory should not be able to sacrifice political rights for economic benefits.

[A18]

You wrote: "They're American citizens, their colony is larger than many states.  If they want to have full representation, who are you to say they shouldn't just because they favor the Democrats?"

I took this to mean that all citizens should have full representation, and that Puerto Rico should accordingly be given the option of statehood.

My point was that the democratic theory behind admitting new states isn't that clear-cut. Because each and every state is entitled to exactly two additional senators, regardless of population, you run the risk of giving disproportionate (or more disproportionate) weight to certain constituencies and interest groups, even as you decrease the disproportionate power of others. It's a difficult balancing act.

[Lunar]

You wrote: "They're American citizens, their colony is larger than many states.  If they want to have full representation, who are you to say they shouldn't just because they favor the Democrats?"

I took this to mean that all citizens should have full representation, and that Puerto Rico should accordingly be given the option of statehood.

My point was that the democratic theory behind admitting new states isn't that clear-cut. Because each and every state is entitled to exactly two additional senators, regardless of population, you run the risk of giving disproportionate (or more disproportionate) weight to certain constituencies and interest groups, even as you decrease the disproportionate power of others. It's a difficult balancing act.

The "right to senators" - so to speak - is a "right" based off of regional representation.  Thus I'm not talking about a weighting issue really, yaddamean? 

[A18]

But that principle of "regional representation" is contrary to the democratic principle you were espousing.