Skip to main content

View Diary: Puerto Rico: Statehood and status (248 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Some truth but also some flaws in your analysis (6+ / 0-)

    While I agree that the U.S. Congress is unlikely to endorse Puerto Rican statehood anytime soon, you're essentially avoided discussion of the two-part nature of Puerto Rico's referendum.  In the first part, Puerto Ricans voted -- by about 54% -- against the current status (Free Associated State).  In the second part, the vast majority who offered an opinion (and, admittedly, a chunk chose to leave the second question blank) endorse statehood.  It's fair to say, however, that a majority opted for statehood as a goal.  And to say that voters weren't given the option of retaining the current status misstates the nature of the two-part referendum.  BTW, on a personal level, I favor statehood for Puerto Rico, but until it can be achieved, I would like to see Puerto Ricans -- and other American citizens in similar situations (e.g., the Virgin Islands, our remaining Pacific territories) get some electoral votes.  That should be a no-brainer.

    •  I disagree with you (4+ / 0-)

      To compare the statehood vote when the status quo was not compoeting with it was completely ridiculous.

      If you want to argue that the majority oppose the status quo, fine.

      But to exclude the status quo when arguing they favor statehood is ridiculous and deceiving.

      •  ˄˄˄˄˄˄˄ (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Denise Oliver Velez


        It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Thoreau

        by newpioneer on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:33:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Certainly not trying to be deceiving... (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry, but I don't think my argument is ridiculous and I certainly don't think it was deceiving.  When designing a two-part referendum, the second part doesn't need to (and shouldn't) re-ask the first question yet again.  It would have been silly to have the second question ask:  Ok, if we go with something different, do we (a) become a state, (b) stay the same, or (c) go for independence.  The (b) answer has already been voted on and 54% voted 'no, we don't want to stay the same' (the reason the second question matters).  That said, the 'enhanced commonwealth' could (and was, I believe) read as the equivalent of 'don't make any significant changes (like statehood or independence) but leave things more-or-less the same with some marginal improvements'; as such, it was pretty darn close to being a proxy for 'leave things alone' votes.  And it got a third of the vote.  Would it have gotten the majority if the boycotters had voted?  We'll never know, because they opted not to vote; their choice, but you can only count the votes that were cast.

    •  "a chunk chose to leave the second question blank" (3+ / 0-)

      You understate this. More than 400K voters left question 2 blank, because the PPD asked them to do so in protest over the whole process. So it was actually an organized effort to delegitimize the vote. Question 1 reflects the votes of statehood + independence supporters. But if you add the "sovereign" commonwealth, independence, and blank ballots, there was actually a majority AGAINST statehood.

      So, Armando is right. Gridlock as usual. Nothing to see here, move along folks.

      "We live now in hard times, not end times." -- Jon Stewart

      by vawolf on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:16:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site