Puerto Rico status referendum - June 11

[Blackacre]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2017

I didn't see a thread on this. Puerto Ricans are voting again for their status. Unlike previous votes, there will be no option maintaining the commonwealth status the island has had for decades. In the 2012 referendum (concurrent with the US presidential election and the PR Governor election), 54% of voters chose to change their status; 61.6% of these voters chose statehood. But 27% of ballots in that referendum were blank.

If the referendum goes with statehood, the Puerto Rico government is also set to pass a bill to select the date for elections that will choose the new senators and congressmen. I'm not sure how much can happen with a GOP congress and president, but it would be hard to argue against the will of a United States territory (assuming statehood passes).

I do believe the Republican platform supports statehood.

That will go out the window when the state sends 2 Democratic Senators and 5 Democratic Congressmen to Washington. Though the state could be crafty and send one GOP Senator to make it a politically neutral act. Even so, I don't see Trump's party wanting to give any improved status to a mostly nonwhite area.

Hope it passes, though

[Blackacre]

It'll pass and be a bit harder for Republicans to deny Puerto Rico statehood and federal representation than they do to the District of Columbia. But I'd still expect them to stall its official recognition of statehood unless there can be some arrangement to ensure Puerto Rico isn't completely represented by Democrats.

The last time new state was admitted was kind of a mutual compromise betwen parties not to upset the balance. It was assumed Alaska will be a Democratic state while Hawaii a Republican one. Of course it flipped rather quickly (I must say I don't quite get the idea of Hawaii being a solid GOP state, given consequences of the Hawaii Democratic Revolution of 1954.)

Puerto Rico is the only territory large enough to become a state. There's no other candidate to balance this, especially a GOP-leaning.

One, WOW, they sure got lucky that they were so wrong about Alaska and Hawaii that it ended up working out for them okay regardless.

Two, There might be some way to retain the partisan balance if that's what it really takes. Carving a second state from California would be the easiest way to go about it, alternatively Northern Texas could become its own state if the state as a whole ends up swinging hard Dem.

However, I personally believe that the partisan balance in the states is ALREADY out of whack because of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. All tiny states, but they inflate the number of Republicans in the Senate and the GOP strength in the electoral college. There are a couple of tiny Dem states, but not as many, and the GOP also has strength in medium-small states like WV, MS, KS, NE, and OK that further inflate their advantage. [/rant]

[Blackacre]

Besides, while adding PR as a state would break the "50 states, a hundred Senators" even number thing, it would make all 3 Senate classes equally sized. Right now Class 3 has 34 Senators, and the others have 33. PR would get a Class 1 and a Class 2 Senator (like Montana and Maine) and that would balance out the three Senate classes. It would also probably make the electoral college total an odd number, making a two-way tie impossible

[Blackacre]

Giving PR Statehood would give it all the economic benefits of statehood, including having all US laws apply there. It's in the situation it's in because of certain loopholes in existing laws that mean that they don't apply to Puerto Rico.

[Blackacre]

^ if we're doing that, maybe give American Samoa at least citizenship and a voting Congressman?

[Blackacre]

DC should not be a state. Give its population to Maryland or something, but cities should not be entire states.

You know, there are good arguments to be made about why D.C. should not be a state, but this incredibly arbitrary reason is not one of them. Why does the population density of a certain area disqualify it from being a state?

It would be government redundancy.  A waste of money.

By that logic, Wyoming and Vermont should not be states, because they have fewer people than DC