Puerto Rico to vote on statehood Sunday

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
31,424
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Normally this would be big news but I guess it's getting buried by the ******* in Washington.

Puerto Rico goes to the polls for statehood

Puerto Rico’s government is banking on a push for statehood to solve the structural issues that led to its financial crisis.

Puerto Ricans will vote Sunday to decide the territory’s status.

If statehood wins, as expected, the island will enact what’s known as the Tennessee Plan, an avenue to accession by which U.S. territories send a congressional delegation to demand to be seated in Washington.

Puerto Rico will send two senators and five representatives, chosen by Gov. Ricardo Rosselló (D), later this year, once the plan is put into action.

Statehood remains a long shot as many Republicans are wary of adding a 51st state that could add two Democratic senators and seven Democratic electors to the Electoral College.
Click to expand...
Still, the plan faces legal challenges and opposition on the island — despite the fact that Puerto Ricans in 2012 voted by a wide margin to become a state.

Then-Gov. Alejandro García Padilla (D), a member of the anti-statehood Partido Popular Democrático (PPD), opposed statehood. His party and the small pro-independence party have vowed to boycott Sunday’s vote.

Following the 2012 plebiscite, opponents of statehood argued that participation had not been high enough to reflect the true will of the people.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, only one opinion survey has been published:
http://prdecide.elnuevodia.com/detalle/reportaje/311_plebiscite-boycott-fails-to-seduce-the-masses/

The results of The Poll widely favor Statehood, with a 52%. Followed, in parity, by the actual territorial status, with 17%, and the commonwealth or independence, with 15%.
Click to expand...
Among people who say they intend to vote, however, 66% say they favor statehood.


The 2012 referendum was confusing, and I think its results were somewhat ambiguous. It asked two questions, and many of the votes cast were invalid (indicating that many people were confused). This one is simpler, one question, three choices: statehood, current status, or independence.


Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rule 10 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well Republicans aren't about to allow it to happen. After all, that would be two additional senators for Democrats.
 
Tony Stark said:
Well Republicans aren't about to allow it to happen. After all, that would be two additional senators for Democrats.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they don't want to, but until now, they never really had to go on the record as opposing it, because the Puerto Ricans themselves were split on the issue. This could make it clear that Puerto Rico really wants to become a state.
 
The real question is how are we going to arrange 51 stars neatly on the flag? It's going to look weird. I've seen some proposed designs, and some of them are crazy. Oddly enough, the one where all the stars are in circle is the least jarring to the eye. The designs where they keep in rows but stagger them differently looks too close but too far off from normal to be comfortable. Is there an uncanny valley in vexillology?
 
When I first started reading the OP, I thought that it wasn't really big news. I know they've voted on statehood before. No big deal. Then I saw "as expected", in bold.

Has a Puerto Rico statehood plebiscite ever passed before? I don't think it has. Usually, they vote to keep their territorial status.

Well, good on 'em. I would hope it passes just to make Trump supporters uncomfortable, but in a larger sense, I also don't think it makes sense to retain anything in the United States that is just "sort of" in the United States. It should be all, or nothing.


ETA: I didn't read the whole OP at first. Apparently, they already did vote at least once to become a state.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Has a Puerto Rico statehood plebiscite ever passed before? I don't think it has. Usually, they vote to keep their territorial status.

. . .
ETA: I didn't read the whole OP at first. Apparently, they already did vote at least once to become a state.
Click to expand...

As I argued above, and also in an earlier thread I still think the 2012 vote was too flawed to properly be considered a vote for statehood.

Put it this way: there were 1,798,987 valid votes on the first question, of which 970,910 (53.97%) voted to change the status quo while 828,077 (46.03%) voted to keep the status quo. Properly speaking (IMO), those who voted to keep the status quo for the first question should not have voted for the second question because their first preference is the status quo, and the status quo was not an option in the second question. However many more people than the 970,910 who voted to change the status quo also voted on the second question. By pure math, some of the people who voted for statehood must have also voted for the status quo. Statehood was actually their second choice, not their preferred choice. So I consider the results to be ambiguous and a clearer choice should have been presented to voters. One question, as many options as are needed, but you can only choose one option. Not this two-part question stuff.
 
I can imagine there are benefits to statehood for Puerto Rico. What are the benefits to the rest of the country?
 
shuize said:
I can imagine there are benefits to statehood for Puerto Rico. What are the benefits to the rest of the country?
Click to expand...

More US citizens have a right vote for federal elections.

Yeah, I know Republicans don't see this as a plus.
 
Tony Stark said:
More US citizens have a right vote for federal elections.

Yeah, I know Republicans don't see this as a plus.
Click to expand...


You don't give a rat's ass about Puerto Rico having increased citizenship rights. You want 2 more Democratic senators.

Which is why the Republicans don't want this.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
shuize said:
I can imagine there are benefits to statehood for Puerto Rico. What are the benefits to the rest of the country?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it's a flawed question.

I remember reading somewhere that taxation without representation was something bad. The people of Puerto Rico should be full citizens, with representation.

Now I know that's not completely practical for every citizen of every territory and to be honest I don't even know whether or not Puerto Ricans pay the same federal taxes as Americans who reside in a state. Many Puerto Ricans don't want it, and I assume that's because there are advantages of not living in a state. However, in general, we should strive to make all American citizens into real, first class, American citizens, complete with congressmen.
 
Beerina said:
You don't give a rat's ass about Puerto Rico having increased citizenship rights. You want 2 more Democratic senators.

Which is why the Republicans don't want this.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12
Click to expand...

No, I think it is wrong that they are subject to federal law but do not have a say in it.

Republican scum only think about things in terms of how it will benefit them but not everyone is the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's sort of interesting that despite all the (in my opinion, overwrought) "checks and balances" built into the US system of government, admitting a new state (literally a constitutional question) is just an up-or-down vote in Congress.

So, here's to 2018.
 
Meadmaker said:
In my opinion, it's a flawed question.

I remember reading somewhere that taxation without representation was something bad. The people of Puerto Rico should be full citizens, with representation.

Now I know that's not completely practical for every citizen of every territory and to be honest I don't even know whether or not Puerto Ricans pay the same federal taxes as Americans who reside in a state. Many Puerto Ricans don't want it, and I assume that's because there are advantages of not living in a state. However, in general, we should strive to make all American citizens into real, first class, American citizens, complete with congressmen.
Click to expand...

They are not subject to the federal income tax under the status quo. As a state, they would be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Puerto_Rico

Though the Commonwealth government has its own tax laws, Puerto Ricans are also required to pay most US federal taxes,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] with the major exception being that most residents do not have to pay the federal personal income tax.[9] In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury.[10] Residents of Puerto Rico pay into Social Security, and are thus eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. However, they are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the island actually receives a smaller fraction of the Medicaid funding than it would receive if it were a US state.[11] Also, Medicare providers receive less-than-full state-like reimbursements for services rendered to beneficiaries in Puerto Rico, even though the latter paid fully into the system.[12]

The federal taxes paid by Puerto Rico residents include import/export taxes,[13] Federal commodity taxes,[14] social security taxes,[15] among others. Residents also pay federal payroll taxes, such as Social Security[16] and Medicare taxes.[17]
Click to expand...

Now, as we all know from Romney, about 47% of Americans are too poor to pay income tax anyway, and that percentage would no doubt be even higher in Puerto Rico. But some of them would have to start paying (federal) income tax.
 
Puerto Rico, independence. Did that simply die? It was a big deal a few decades ago.
 
logger said:
It looks like that is what you're doing? ;)
Click to expand...

If I only cared about how things might benefit me I would have voted for the orange turd. I will get a nice tax cut from him unless he is too incompetent to get it done (decent chance).
 
Tony Stark said:
If I only cared about how things might benefit me I would have voted for the orange turd. I will get a nice tax cut from him unless he is too incompetent to get it done (decent chance).
Click to expand...
Lol
No one will stop you if you want to re-donate it. It is for the good of your fellow man. All these new Puerto Ricans could sure use it!
 
logger said:
Lol
No one will stop you if you want to re-donate it. It is for the good of your fellow man. All these new Puerto Ricans could sure use it!
Click to expand...

You have exactly no knowledge of what I will do with the tax cut I don't need that Dear Leader will probably give me.
 
Tony Stark said:
You have exactly no knowledge of what I will do with the tax cut I don't need that Dear Leader will probably give me.
Click to expand...
Lol
Agreed! Which is why I'm helping you spend it, it's what the left does with my treasure.
 
logger said:
Lol
Agreed! Which is why I'm helping you spend it, it's what the left does with my treasure.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is that the party in total control of the government will probably continue spending about the same amount of your treasure that they currently do while spending less of mine. Assuming they are competent enough to get it done (big assumption).

:)
 
Tony Stark said:
Funny thing is that the party in total control of the government will probably continue spending about the same amount of your treasure that they currently do while spending less of mine. Assuming they are competent enough to get it done (big assumption).

:)
Click to expand...

Not if he passes tax cuts. ;)

But this vote in Puerto Rico is not front page news simply because the left as they do with all countries has ****** it up so bad. Why would we take on another state that is bankrupt?
 
Ugh, could we stay on topic here? This is not the thread for your ongoing partisan pissing contest.

Thanks in advance! :)
 
Puppycow said:
Ugh, could we stay on topic here? This is not the thread for your ongoing partisan pissing contest.

Thanks in advance! :)
Click to expand...

You're right, I will allow logger to have the last word if he wishes. I'm sorry.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
You can answer the bottom part? Why would the US take on another bankrupt state? And isn't that why this isn't big news?
Click to expand...

If statehood depended on state level finances, we should have kicked plenty of radical right wing states like Kansas out. But it is basically irrelevant.
 
Tony Stark said:
If statehood depended on state level finances, we should have kicked plenty of radical right wing states like Kansas out. But it is basically irrelevant.
Click to expand...

What's irrelevant is other states already apart of the union. What specifically does Puerto Rico offer the US. Shuize already asked this?
 
logger said:
What's irrelevant is other states already apart of the union. What specifically does Puerto Rico offer the US. Shuize already asked this?
Click to expand...

The chance for more US citizens to vote in federal elections. Yeah, I know that you Republicans want as few people to vote as possible.
 
Puppycow said:
This one is simpler, one question, three choices: statehood, current status, or independence.
Click to expand...



As someone with family in Newfoundland, I'd advise you to read up on the history of Nfld joining Canada before getting too enamored of this "simpler" question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland_referendums,_1948#The_first_referendum

John Crosbie's autobiography also has an interesting take on what the politics behind this vote were like:

https://www.amazon.ca/No-Holds-Barred-Life-Politics/dp/0771024282

For a fictionalized look, you could watch the movie Secret Nation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiIOurc19aA
 
Beerina said:
You don't give a rat's ass about Puerto Rico having increased citizenship rights. You want 2 more Democratic senators.

Which is why the Republicans don't want this.

Don't think you're more noble. You're just the exact same sorry user of them. How broken-souled facetious.
Vomitously disgusting.
Click to expand...

I think that's harsh. I think that a disinterested person could conclude that the lack of voting rights for U.S. citizens living in territories is unfair.

To be sure, Tony Stark is far from disinterested, but he might have come to this conclusion independently of the voting tendencies of Puerto Rico.
 
Beerina said:
You don't give a rat's ass about Puerto Rico having increased citizenship rights. You want 2 more Democratic senators.

Which is why the Republicans don't want this.
Click to expand...

As if the GOP wants them to have increased rights.

The US territory thing is ridiculous. Either make them states or give them independance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom