Reuters: Puerto Ricans to vote on U.S. territorial status

[Ellis]

My old age won't allow me to remember the year, but I remember one year where it was up for debate and the "mainland" government wanted Puerto Rico to be a state but wanted 2 make it this only if Guam agreed as well. Guam didn't want it so the government, to my old memory, wasn't sure if they should have statehood.

That seems to mirror the early 1800's as the U.S. expanded west. Wasn't it true that for every southern slave state that was added, a free northern state was also added to nullify a domination of political ideology?

[Koolblue13]

It's not easy to get in and out of the country down here because it's a bunch of islands. It would be easier to sneak onto the main land.

Also, try going to other countries, even places like Costa Rica who are encouraging continentals to move their and try working without proper documents.

It's only in America that you can just sneak in, buy a car, get a job and prosper.

[SnyderShrugged]

It's not easy to get in and out of the country down here because it's a bunch of islands. It would be easier to sneak onto the main land.

Also, try going to other countries, even places like Costa Rica who are encouraging continentals to move their and try working without proper documents.

It's only in America that you can just sneak in, buy a car, get a job and prosper.

Oh good! Glad you stopped in KB! (You live in PR right?)

From what you have seen there, what political leanings do you think would dominate there? I've read and heard of it going both ways and havent yet seen anything that supports either viewpoint.

[SnyderShrugged]

Nope, I'm not on that huge land mass. I live on a tiny little rock about 50 miles east of there.

There is no way the USVI wants to be a state.

Territory status is awesome.

sorry about that, now I know what USVI stands for too. (I feel so dumb! LOL)

[Koolblue13]

Oh good! Glad you stopped in KB! (You live in PR right?)

From what you have seen there, what political leanings do you think would dominate there? I've read and heard of it going both ways and havent yet seen anything that supports either viewpoint.

Nope, I'm not on that huge land mass. I live on a tiny little rock about 50 miles east of there.

There is no way the USVI wants to be a state.

Territory status is awesome.

[88Comrade2000]

It would be political. Same reason DC doesn't get statehood - Republicans don't want to give Democrats more Senators and Congressmen.

D.C. doesn't deserve statehood. They are too small. What D.C. deserves to address their lack of Representation is:

1. Since the land D.C. was taken from Maryland, the citizens should be allowed to vote for the Senators in Maryland.

2. D.C. does deserve a congressman or two and to balance that out, create a new congressional Republican leaning state.

If Republicans want to start appealing to hispanics; allowing PR to become #51 would be a start. I think though PR citizens would end up saying no; once they found out they had to pay income taxes.

[Ellis]

If Republicans want to start appealing to hispanics; allowing PR to become #51 would be a start. I think though PR citizens would end up saying no; once they found out they had to pay income taxes.

They know. It's been one of the main reasons they've avoided a referendum on statehood for so long.

[JMS]

just to play devils advocate...

(Border Security)...

I fully admit that I know nothing about their security concerning their neighbors (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica).

I could see Puerto Rico becoming an immigration liability

People who live in Porto Rico are already United States Citizens and don't need a visa or passport to visit or move to the United States, so what would statehood change on that front?

Besides it's not exactly like any of our boarders are secure anyway.

[DallasCowboyFan156]

Fine by me. I say let them become a state so that they pay federal income tax. We could use a little extra revenue.

[thebluefood]

Fine by me. I say let them become a state so that they pay federal income tax. We could use a little extra revenue.

Good point. We could use the extra cash. Making them a state might be the most fiscally sound decision.

What say the rest of you?

[Ellis]

People who live in Porto Rico are already United States Citizens and don't need a visa or passport to visit or move to the United States, so what would statehood change on that front?

Besides it's not exactly like any of our boarders are secure anyway.

this has already been covered in the thread.

[twa]

Good point. We could use the extra cash. Making them a state might be the most fiscally sound decision.

What say the rest of you?

Fine by me, but I'm not sure your accounting is right

it was sold to them that they would be getting money from us

net we need to work on bringing N Mexico into the fold

[Ellis]

Good point. We could use the extra cash. Making them a state might be the most fiscally sound decision.

What say the rest of you?

The story is finally getting more coverage now that 24 hours have passed.

They have a stronger state GDP than 15 U.S. states... (which I imagine would rank them 35th overall.)

Half of the citizens of PR live in the U.S. (roughly 4.5 million.)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/07/puerto-rico-approves-statehood/

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The story is finally getting more coverage now that 24 hours have passed.

They have a stronger state GDP than 15 U.S. states... (which I imagine would rank them 35th overall.)

Half of the citizens of PR live in the U.S. (roughly 4.5 million.)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11/07/puerto-rico-approves-statehood/

You must be Nate Silver or something.

---------- Post added November-8th-2012 at 09:24 AM ----------

D.C. doesn't deserve statehood. They are too small. What D.C. deserves to address their lack of Representation is:

1. Since the land D.C. was taken from Maryland, the citizens should be allowed to vote for the Senators in Maryland.

2. D.C. does deserve a congressman or two and to balance that out, create a new congressional Republican leaning state.

If Republicans want to start appealing to hispanics; allowing PR to become #51 would be a start. I think though PR citizens would end up saying no; once they found out they had to pay income taxes.

Why would you create a new GOP leaning district to "balance it out?" Its currently out of balance. DC is a part of the US and is not represented. That's the imbalance. You don't just create new district either. They are based on population per capita.

[Ellis]

You must be Nate Silver or something.

Ha! No, I read the line in the article and thought it was horribly written. But I put in here anyway, despite how "creative" and ridiculous it was worded.

I'm a glutton for punishment, I suppose.

[Brad_Edwards_Fan]

What people pleased with the potential anexation of Puerto Rico may look like:

[ATTACH]47440[/ATTACH]

[visionary]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/politics/puerto-rico-statehood/index.html

White House weighs in on Puerto Rican statehood vote

After more than 800,000 Puerto Rican voters said they want the island to become the 51st U.S. state, the White House is calling on lawmakers to take action.

"Congress should now study the results closely, and provide the people of Puerto Rico with a clear path forward that lays out the means by which Puerto Ricans themselves can determine their own status," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters this week.

[Prosperity]

The ballot design was dubious, it is skewed towards statehood and severely handicapped territory status

[AsburySkinsFan]

The ballot design was dubious, it is skewed towards statehood and severely handicapped territory status

How?

[88Comrade2000]

Why would you create a new GOP leaning district to "balance it out?" Its currently out of balance. DC is a part of the US and is not represented. That's the imbalance. You don't just create new district either. They are based on population per capita.

Republicans won't just vote for a new Democratic seat- which is what PR would be. So they would add another seat, say in UTAH to balance giving DC a seat.

[Ellis]

Republicans won't just vote for a new Democratic seat- which is what PR would be. So they would add another seat, say in UTAH to balance giving DC a seat.

Actually... it's quite Republican there. If I remember correctly, a number of their leaders/politicians even endorsed Romney. As far back as Jan 2012, Romney publicly stated he would back the results of their referendum and as president, he said he would help them in any way he could in Congress.

---------- Post added December-6th-2012 at 04:12 PM ----------

And here's the first negative piece I've read about Puerto Rican statehood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/business/puerto-rico-races-to-rescue-its-pension-fund.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Puerto Rico is fighting to stay afloat in a rising sea of debt.

Its economy is sputtering. Its population is shrinking. Its recent election is disputed. Its public pension fund is perilously low on cash. The American territory has just been through a brutal five-year recession, something not experienced in the United States as a whole since the 1930's.

Desperate to raise cash, Puerto Rican officials have been selling off anything they can: two toll roads and the main airport so far.

To bring in tax revenue, they are trying to lure people out of the underground economy. Coffee shops, hairdressers, even outdoor market stalls are being required to issue printed receipts with every sale. The receipts carry a lottery number, with a chance to win cars or cash, as an incentive to get shoppers to pay the island’s 7 percent sales tax.

Though many of Puerto Rico’s problems are reminiscent of Greece’s — tax noncompliance, a stagnant economy, years of issuing long-term debt to cover short-term payments — investors have had a nearly insatiable appetite for its bonds.

more at link...

[Prosperity]

How

Territory status was the only choice that required a majority of the vote. The first part of the vote ruled out territory status by combining votes that were effectively for lots of different options. And then when territory status was ruled out there was a separate vote for the left covers. But at no point where statehood and territory status side by side and up for a vote.

For example, if our election was conducted in the same way it would have been 1) who do you want to be president, Obama or "someone else" and then 2) if someone else then Romney Nader or Paul. In that situation the vote would be skewed towards Romney purely for the reason that Obama would be severely disadvantaged by the first part of the ballot.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Territory status was the only choice that required a majority of the vote. The first part of the vote ruled out territory status by combining votes that were effectively for lots of different options. And then when territory status was ruled out there was a separate vote for the left covers. But at no point where statehood and territory status side by side and up for a vote.

For example, if our election was conducted in the same way it would have been 1) who do you want to be president, Obama or "someone else" and then 2) if someone else then Romney Nader or Paul. In that situation the vote would be skewed towards Romney purely for the reason that Obama would be severely disadvantaged by the first part of the ballot.

Ok, I see what you're saying, but if territory gets the majority of votes then that ends it. As such it seems that the majority of people prefer something other than territorial status, once that is determined it is a matter of figuring out what different status people want. It seems to me that a US presidential election doesn't compare because our elections are held due to election term (2, 4, or 6 years). This is much more like a wet/dry vote where it is asked first whether people want to remain dry or go wet, and then after that begin to figure out the limits of the liquor sales (restaurant only, limited number of stores or unlimited).

[gbear]

Territory status was the only choice that required a majority of the vote. The first part of the vote ruled out territory status by combining votes that were effectively for lots of different options. And then when territory status was ruled out there was a separate vote for the left covers. But at no point where statehood and territory status side by side and up for a vote.

For example, if our election was conducted in the same way it would have been 1) who do you want to be president, Obama or "someone else" and then 2) if someone else then Romney Nader or Paul. In that situation the vote would be skewed towards Romney purely for the reason that Obama would be severely disadvantaged by the first part of the ballot.

Gee, that sounds like the logic used when people say a majority of voters were against Obamacare. Never mind that many who were/are against it don't like it because it's not universal healthcare. Instead the people who criticize it say "See! A majority of people want it repealed as a major overstep of governmental power."

[Prosperity]

Ok, I see what you're saying, but if territory gets the majority of votes then that ends it. As such it seems that the majority of people prefer something other than territorial status, once that is determined it is a matter of figuring out what different status people want. It seems to me that a US presidential election doesn't compare because our elections are held due to election term (2, 4, or 6 years). This is much more like a wet/dry vote where it is asked first whether people want to remain dry or go wet, and then after that begin to figure out the limits of the liquor sales (restaurant only, limited number of stores or unlimited).

Gbear basically talked about the response that I would give, which is that this situation is unlike wet dry vote where the option is wet or dry, and if wet then how wet (e.g. how later are stores open, can grocery stores sell hard liquor etc). That is, some people can be united against an idea, but for polar opposite reasons. That's kind of what happened here. The reason it is different than your analogy is because the "other" options (of which statehood was one) did not have much in common. Some of the options, independence and free association would have decreased the entanglement with the US while other options would have greatly increased entanglement (like statehood). If on the other hand the Other options were all something that increased entanglement then I would say the wet/dry analogy would be apt, but again the Other options were so dissimilar that the analogy doesnt fit.

IMO this was a pretty clear attempt by the ballot designers to skew the vote. And they were pretty successful at it.