Puerto Rico status referendum - June 11

[AndyHogan14]

So, if we have about half in with around 500,000 ballots cast, we are looking at around a million ballots cast overall or 500,000 less than the governor's race in 2016. Unfortunately, it seems as if turnout may be too low for Republicans to see a true mandate in favor of statehood...

[AndyHogan14]

So, if we have about half in with around 500,000 ballots cast, we are looking at around a million ballots cast overall or 500,000 less than the governor's race in 2016. Unfortunately, it seems as if turnout may be too low for Republicans to see a true mandate in favor of statehood...

I think they would find a reason to reject it no matter what the turnout or vote share is. In the end, it boils down to partisan politics, and someone like Mitch McConnell is only concerned with winning elections. Giving Puerto Rico 2 Senators would, in his opinion, make things unreasonably difficult for Republicans.

I think statehood for Puerto Rico (or DC) will be up to Democrats to implement, whenever that may be.

Well, I would think that Jenniffer González (R) would be one of the new senators until elections in 2018, so there would be no change in the partisan composition in the Senate...and there's no reason why she couldn't win reelection considering that she won as a Republican in 2016.

But, I have to agree, it'll up to the Dems to admit PR as a state, if at all.

[AndyHogan14]

Apparently the plan is to elect senators and congressmen anyway to send to DC and force a vote. I can see the current crop of reps actually arresting them if they try to do a protest, vote in, etc.

I thought Rosselló was going to appoint the senators (they'd both be up for reelection in 2018, I assume) and hold special elections for the House. Should be an interesting few months...

[AndyHogan14]

But would GOP senators be so willing to add two more Dem senators? It would be 52 Rep. 48 Dem. 2 Ind (caucus Dem).

I think it would be 1D-1R because I see no reason why Gonzalez wouldn't win a possible PR senate seat when she won the House delegate seat in 2016.

Also, I think the number that we need to get in order to have any kind of mandate would be 970,910 (the number that voted "no" to the first question in 2012—the part of the referendum that people did not boycott) in favor of statehood. I think this is doable, depending on what is still out.

[AndyHogan14]

If the results page on El Nuevo Día, then they in no way have a mandate for statehood because over 90% is in.

https://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/politica/nota/conocelosresultadosdelplebiscito-2330105/

[AndyHogan14]

Abstentions and/or blank ballots do not count as votes, but that would be an easy excuse to avoid even taking up a vote in Congress on statehood.

Oh, I agree, but with less that 30% turnout, it is not hard for Republicans to use turnout as an excuse. I was hoping there would be a clear mandate to at least make it hard on them...

[AndyHogan14]

You really think an issue this massive should be decided based off a non-binding referendum that 22% of the voters participated in and even less voted yes for?

I know Democrats are desperate for ways to make poor whites irrelevant, but this is just sad.

Well, 78% of the population do not care enough either way to vote. Of the people that actually care, 97% want statehood, therefore, statehood should be granted ASAP.

When Jerry Brown was reelected in 2014, there was only 30% turnout...does that make his second term invalid?

[AndyHogan14]

You really think an issue this massive should be decided based off a non-binding referendum that 22% of the voters participated in and even less voted yes for?

I know Democrats are desperate for ways to make poor whites irrelevant, but this is just sad.

Well, 78% of the population do not care enough either way to vote. Of the people that actually care, 97% want statehood, therefore, statehood should be granted ASAP.

When Jerry Brown was reelected in 2014, there was only 30% turnout...does that make his second term invalid?

If Jerry Brown was going to become the 51st state, yeah I would say it's invalid.

Then we will have yet another referendum and the opposition parties will boycott it and then we will do it again, and again, and again and nothing will be resolved. If turnout is such an issue (and it is not in pretty much every other election in the US), then there needs to be a binding referendum passed by Congress that makes it clear that the US government WILL follow the outcome of the referendum regardless of turnout—then and only then, might there not be a ridiculous boycott.