Puerto Rico Statehood referendum discussion thread

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

What other election in America do we tell a 52% majority that they don't actually get to win in order to placate the feelings a 48% minority? Maybe Trump could try that argument next!

Spoiler alert: even if a referendum's as narrow as 52-48, this doesn't tend to work out so well.

[7,052,770]

It's happening.gif

https://twitter.com/SenRubioPress/status/1329110755451555840

[7,052,770]

How would the 48% of Puerto Ricans who voted no react to Puerto Rico becoming a state?

How many would boycott the first round of elections to Congress? How many would boycott longterm? Any chance there would be abstentionist candidates who would explicitly promise to keep the seats vacant if they win?

[Green Line]

This is an island where a sizeable minority, at least, see itself as its own nation.  Even many Puerto Ricans on the mainland see themselves as a distinct national people.  Bringing them into an irrevocable union would be the dumbest move we could make.  There won't only be abstentionists, there will be a huge bloc of flat out seperatists.

[Intell]

This had a 52% turnout, and many people did not vote because the vote was non-binding. This is the most stupid way to bring about PR as a state

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This had a 52% turnout, and many people did not vote because the vote was non-binding. This is the most stupid way to bring about PR as a state

There might be a final vote after congress approves.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'd just like to remind the naysayers in this thread that trying to resist a nonbinding 52/48 referendum on entering or leaving a union tends to go very badly.

[7,052,770]

This had a 52% turnout, and many people did not vote because the vote was non-binding. This is the most stupid way to bring about PR as a state

In America, the losing side doesn't get to overturn an election because they couldn't get their side to turn out. Imagine if Hillary had made that argument.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This had a 52% turnout, and many people did not vote because the vote was non-binding. This is the most stupid way to bring about PR as a state

It’s only “non-binding” in the sense that a refendum cannot admit a state into the Union.  Only Congress can do it.  It’s not like Puerto could put a “binding” referendum on the ballot.  So I’m not sure what procedure you want to be used here.  The argument that “many people did not vote” see s incredibly silly to me since many people don’t vote in every election, and we don’t use turnout as a measure of whether an election is valid in any other case.

[Green Line]

I'd just like to remind the naysayers in this thread that trying to resist a nonbinding 52/48 referendum on entering or leaving a union tends to go very badly.

I don't care if they leave.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Because all Americans, whether they live in California, New York, Texas, Idaho, Mississippi, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Washington DC, or wherever, deserve to be represented in Congress, whether or not they vote for candidates I like or not.

Of course all Americans deserve to be represented in Congress (and be represented equally).

Would you support a bill stripping senators from South Dakota? I wouldn't.

Of course we should all support a bill stripping senators from South Dakota. South Dakota literally only exists as a state because back in 1889/1890, the Republican Party wanted to rig the Senate and the electoral college by adding 6 new very sparsely populated rural states so as to add more Republican votes, including splitting the Dakota territory into 2 states rather than just 1 for the sole reason of having more Senators/electoral votes.

So either South Dakota and other states should be stripped of their Senators and combined with North Dakota/Montana/Idaho/Wyoming into one single state with a reasonable population, or else California should be split into about 50 states, or else better yet just get rid of the Senate entirely or make representation in the Senate not depend arbitrarily on state lines. Democrats should learn a lesson from the Republicans of the late 19th century on how politics works. To give the American people the representative democracy that we deserve, you have to first make the Senate representative of the American people, which can only be done by creating more states, or potentially by eliminating/merging some states such as South Dakota (though that is harder to do).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

DC needs statehood more than PR, D's need to push harder for the midterms for DC Statehood not just PR

[Roronoa D. Law]

I'd just like to remind the naysayers in this thread that trying to resist a nonbinding 52/48 referendum on entering or leaving a union tends to go very badly.

But this situation is not like the autonomous regions in Europe. The way I see it is that most Puerto Ricans want to remain a part of the US. I think most of the comfort around the Commonwealth status and skepticism about becoming a state is the belief that will end any chance at independence. But Puerto Ricans do not have enough trust in their local government to cut America's loose nor do they want to turn down the benefits of being part of the US. A lot of overseas France are in the same situation. 

[7,052,770]

Because all Americans, whether they live in California, New York, Texas, Idaho, Mississippi, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Washington DC, or wherever, deserve to be represented in Congress, whether or not they vote for candidates I like or not.

Of course all Americans deserve to be represented in Congress (and be represented equally).

Would you support a bill stripping senators from South Dakota? I wouldn't.

Of course we should all support a bill stripping senators from South Dakota. South Dakota literally only exists as a state because back in 1889/1890, the Republican Party wanted to rig the Senate and the electoral college by adding 6 new very sparsely populated rural states so as to add more Republican votes, including splitting the Dakota territory into 2 states rather than just 1 for the sole reason of having more Senators/electoral votes.

So either South Dakota and other states should be stripped of their Senators and combined with North Dakota/Montana/Idaho/Wyoming into one single state with a reasonable population, or else California should be split into about 50 states, or else better yet just get rid of the Senate entirely or make representation in the Senate not depend arbitrarily on state lines. Democrats should learn a lesson from the Republicans of the late 19th century on how politics works. To give the American people the representative democracy that we deserve, you have to first make the Senate representative of the American people, which can only be done by creating more states, or potentially by eliminating/merging some states such as South Dakota (though that is harder to do).

Sure that makes sense logically but its literally impossible. Best we can do is not deny the majority voices in DC and Puerto Rico who voted for statehood on flimsy political grounds.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I kind of wish this referendum had been conducted under RCV with both independence and staying a territory as options.  Because I don't think the vote would look nearly as close in that case.

Presumably, both proponents of staying a territory and independence would have voted solidly against this referendum, since becoming a state would both end the territorial status quo and likely permanently foreclose the possibility of independence.  But statehood might be the second choice of both these camps.   

So if there were 3 choices, it is possible that 52/48 could end instead be something like 50/30/20 in the first round and 65/35 in the second round.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Sure that makes sense logically but its literally impossible. Best we can do is not deny the majority voices in DC and Puerto Rico who voted for statehood on flimsy political grounds.

It is not literally impossible. Technically it is quite straightforward. The thing that makes it "impossible" is just people like you saying that it is impossible.

It's a good thing that abolitionists, suffragettes, and civil rights activists like MLK didn't have your attitude, or nothing ever would have changed with respect to those issues.

Also it seems sort of weird that you would say this is impossible. Are you not the poster that started a thread about organizing Democrats to move en masse to states like Wyoming to get more Senate seats?

[7,052,770]

Sure that makes sense logically but its literally impossible. Best we can do is not deny the majority voices in DC and Puerto Rico who voted for statehood on flimsy political grounds.

It is not literally impossible. Technically it is quite straightforward. The thing that makes it "impossible" is just people like you saying that it is impossible.

It's a good thing that abolitionists, suffragettes, and civil rights activists like MLK didn't have your attitude, or nothing ever would have changed with respect to those issues.

Also it seems sort of weird that you would say this is impossible. Are you not the poster that started a thread about organizing Democrats to move en masse to states like Wyoming to get more Senate seats?

States cannot be combined without the consent of the states. No state is going to consent to being combined for the express purpose of reducing their Senate power. Maybe it's theoretically possible that California could be split into gerrymandered new states and all of them admitted, but that's a logistical nightmare no one is interested in, least of all Californians.

It's pretty rich that you're comparing your pipe dream to civil rights and suffrage, but OK.

[Badger]

The insistence that Puerto Rico choose between Independence and statehood rather than the status quo is is equally Colonial is saying they should remain a US Territory regardless. When you Puerto Rican C validity and benefits in the current territorial status quo, and our mainland view of choosing one of the other is equally imperialist and condescending.

Mind you, this comes from someone who very much wants to see PR statehood. I just have concerns about doing so over a narrow 53% majority vote.

[Former President tack50]

Because all Americans, whether they live in California, New York, Texas, Idaho, Mississippi, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Washington DC, or wherever, deserve to be represented in Congress, whether or not they vote for candidates I like or not.

Of course all Americans deserve to be represented in Congress (and be represented equally).

Would you support a bill stripping senators from South Dakota? I wouldn't.

Of course we should all support a bill stripping senators from South Dakota. South Dakota literally only exists as a state because back in 1889/1890, the Republican Party wanted to rig the Senate and the electoral college by adding 6 new very sparsely populated rural states so as to add more Republican votes, including splitting the Dakota territory into 2 states rather than just 1 for the sole reason of having more Senators/electoral votes.

Worth noting that this "gerrymander" was later (accidentally) reversed by admitting Oklahoma as a single state when it should have been admitted as 2 different states (both of which would be titanium R now)

[Battista Minola 1616]

Because all Americans, whether they live in California, New York, Texas, Idaho, Mississippi, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Washington DC, or wherever, deserve to be represented in Congress, whether or not they vote for candidates I like or not.

Of course all Americans deserve to be represented in Congress (and be represented equally).

Would you support a bill stripping senators from South Dakota? I wouldn't.

Of course we should all support a bill stripping senators from South Dakota. South Dakota literally only exists as a state because back in 1889/1890, the Republican Party wanted to rig the Senate and the electoral college by adding 6 new very sparsely populated rural states so as to add more Republican votes, including splitting the Dakota territory into 2 states rather than just 1 for the sole reason of having more Senators/electoral votes.

Worth noting that this "gerrymander" was later (accidentally) reversed by admitting Oklahoma as a single state when it should have been admitted as 2 different states (both of which would be titanium R now)

Worth noting that between 1987 and 2011 (which is not a short time; twenty-four years) Democrats controlled the majority of Dakotas Senate seats. Republicans have now controlled all of them for just two years (since 2019) and that hadn't happened since 1960.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Because all Americans, whether they live in California, New York, Texas, Idaho, Mississippi, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Washington DC, or wherever, deserve to be represented in Congress, whether or not they vote for candidates I like or not.

Of course all Americans deserve to be represented in Congress (and be represented equally).

Would you support a bill stripping senators from South Dakota? I wouldn't.

Of course we should all support a bill stripping senators from South Dakota. South Dakota literally only exists as a state because back in 1889/1890, the Republican Party wanted to rig the Senate and the electoral college by adding 6 new very sparsely populated rural states so as to add more Republican votes, including splitting the Dakota territory into 2 states rather than just 1 for the sole reason of having more Senators/electoral votes.

Worth noting that this "gerrymander" was later (accidentally) reversed by admitting Oklahoma as a single state when it should have been admitted as 2 different states (both of which would be titanium R now)

Maybe, maybe not.  Had Sequoyah been admitted as a separate State, its demographics would likely be considerably different than they are now.