Territories over states

The rules are the rules, so unlike the Clinton people, I won't try to change them in the middle of the contest. But I'm really confused as to why on Earth the DNC would create a system that gives a non-state like Puerto Rico more delegates to the party convention than more than half of our states?

             Delegates
Puerto Rico:    63
Alabama:        60
Connecticut:    60
Kentucky:       60
Iowa:           57
South Carolina: 54
Oklahoma:       48
Arkansas:       47
Kansas:         41
Mississippi:    41
DC              39
West Virginia:  39
New Mexico:     38
Nevada:         34
Rhode Island:   33
Maine:          32
Nebraska:       31
New Hampshire:  30
Hawaii:         29
Utah:           29
Montana:        25
Delaware:       23
Idaho:          23
South Dakota:   23
Vermont:        23
North Dakota:   21
Alaska:         18
Wyoming:        18

That's 27 states that have fewer delegates than Puerto Rico does, even though Puerto Rico is not a state. Even if apportioned by population, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Alabama are larger than Puerto Rico. And, to top it all off, Puerto Rico doesn't even have Democratic and Republican parties on the island running for and holding political offices.

Now I'm not opposed to the territories have delegates, even though I honestly can't see the logic behind it. Then again, I can't see the logic behind commonwealth status either, as notions of colonialism seem to me quaint and obsolete.  

But if you're going to give them representation, it makes little sense to give them more representation at a national convention than over half the United States of America.

It's clear this mess of a nomination process the Democrats devised is in desperate need of a top-bottom overhaul. Throw this one on that list.  If Puerto Rico becomes a state (something I wholeheartedly support if the people of Puerto Rico want it), then by all means, let them have their due representation. Obviously.

Until then, there's no reason why in future nominating contests, any state in our union should take a back seat to a territory.

•  The Clintons are weasels

  I'm sorry, but there it is

  by there will be blood on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:31:13 PM PDT

  •  I say that because of today's actions by Clinton

    Comparing FL/MI to Florida 2000 is so over the top, and I know, in advance, that they are going to take the PR vote and act as if it is end of democracy since they won the "popular vote"

    by there will be blood on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM PDT

    •  Hillary is so damn narcissistic

      She's on a mission for  ME!

      by FishOutofWater on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:37:13 PM PDT

      •  It's a mission for MEH!

        by internationaljock on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:54:25 PM PDT

        •  Aside from States vs Territories

          Why do SOME territories get full delegates and others only 1/2 delegates?

          Politics, backroom deals, obfuscation, shadow selection, and SLEAZE! (gushundheit).

          by Ma Joad on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:01:01 PM PDT

          •  Full/Half Delegate Clarification

            The Charter of the Democratic Party (pdf) says (Article 9, sections 3 and 4) that for the purposes of the charter DC and Puerto Rico are considered as if they were states.  This almost certainly reflects a view that these places should be states.   It's a political statement but perfectly reasonable.  The Democratic Party can't control what the federal government does, but they can control their own rules.  The other territories that currently have (non-voting) representation in Congress: USVI, Guam, and American Samoa get only a token 3 pledged delegate votes (or 4 with a bonus).  Because they're delegations are so small, the DNC allows them to split these 3 votes among 6 people.  This is also reasonable as it allows more people to be delegates and come out and support the party.   The superdelegates from ALL territories get full votes.  Presumably now that CNMI has been given a non-voting delegate in the House they will be treated the same as Guam, American Samoa, and USVI.

            by Galois on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:26:17 PM PDT

            •  Question about Democrats Abroad then...

              But then why do Democrats abroad only get 1/2 votes (these are typically US citizens who are temporarily living overseas but live in a US state normally)?  Why do they only get 1/2 a vote?

              by seattlegirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:06 PM PDT

              •  They're not a territory.

                The Democratic Party has decided to give Democrats Abroad some representation both at the convention and in the DNC in general.  They give them 4 votes on the DNC (typical of a small state or territory) but because they are so spread out over a number of geographical areas they allow them to split those 4 votes among 8 people.  These DNC members are the only superdelegates with 1/2 votes.  Likewise they're pledged delegate amount is allowed to be split because its only a few votes and this allows more people from around the world to serve as delegates.  Note that people born in US territories are also US citizens.  The 1/2 votes are not giving any less representation.  It merely allows the representation to be split among more people, effectively allowing more individuals to serve as delegates.

                by Galois on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:57 PM PDT

            •  Thanks for the clear explanation. really :)

              So all we need to do is eliminate the 1/2 concept and give them 3 people at convention instead of six.
              Gee, so simple.

              Or else we can go to 1/24ths so I can go to the convention too.

              I am very tired of the concept of half a person.

              by Ma Joad on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM PDT

          •  Puerto Rico bonus points

            I did outreach work for a statehood group from Puerto Rico and they have deep pockets for financially supporting members of congress who support their causes.

            Out of all the territories, Puerto Rico is probably more active in Washington than probably even the District of Columbia.

            But putting THAT aside, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, it is my understanding that states and territories also get brownie points for being "good" democrats.

            They get extra delegates based on how many democrats they get elected into office, how the state voted in federal elections, if they are diligently managing their young democrats clubs and the state party organization, voter registration drives, how much they kick up to the national party etc.

            by MFL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:35:06 PM PDT

            •  Kos ALSO

              Kos - Puerto Ricans have so little control over their own island.  If they want more delegates than by all means give them as many delegates as they want.

              The US military tests bombs there, the corps of engineers sells out "national" land out to hotels so they can build on reefs.

              I'd be interested to see how many Puerto Ricans serve in the military.

              and they don't get to vote for president.

              I have NO problem allowing them to have as many delegates as they want.

              by MFL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:39:47 PM PDT

              •  PR's serve in higher numbers per capita

                than anyone else.

                by Deoliver47 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:25:03 PM PDT

              •  Plus PR is a "Commonwealth" not a "Territory"

                by DefendOurConstitution on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:42:11 PM PDT

            •  Not quite.

              The Republican system works a little more along those lines.  The Democrats only reward those types of things indirectly in 3 ways.  

              1. The base amount of pledged delegates a state (but not a territory) gets is an average of how many they would get if the delegates were distributed proportionally based upon how many electoral votes a state has and how many they get if the delegates were distributed proportionally based upon how much they contributed to the popular vote of the Democratic nominee for President in the last several elections.  So increases votes for the Democratic presidential nominee can boost the base amount (and conversely).  This is part of the reason KY, AL, and SC have less votes.  Puerto Rico is just assigned a base of 44 (probably based on some assumption about if they were a state how many electoral votes they would have).  The other territories are assigned a base of 3 votes.

              2. If a state or territory elects a Democratic Governor or US Congressperson that person is automatically a superdelegate (thus increasing the size of the delegation).  

              3)The only way to earn "bonus" delegates though is to hold your primary/caucus later in the season.  This helped both Kentucky and Puerto Rico.

              by Galois on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:46:43 PM PDT

      •  For You?

        TELL HER TO STOP, ITS HURTING ME!

        by randomcharacters123 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM PDT

    •  Your vindication is knowing that

      the superdelegates don't buy that crap for a second and are beginning to peel away from Clinton in response to this insult

      by frankzappatista on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:38:14 PM PDT

    •  Actually there's hope for an Obama PR victory...

      ...see Deoliver47's great diary.

      by tdub on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:47:12 PM PDT

      •  Maybe not a victory

        but not a blowout by any means.

        thanks!

        by Deoliver47 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:16:56 PM PDT

      •  I don't think there is much of a chance of that

        happening, don't get me wrong I would love that to happen but first of all its an open primary and the PNP is solidly behind Clinton (these folks generally vote Republican) and people who generally vote PPD are mixed at best.

        by HGM MA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:22:47 PM PDT

    •  exactly I agree, the Florida recount of 2000

      being compared to FL and Michigan in the primary cycle is absolutely ridiculous. And Hillary agreed as did all the other Democratic candidates that Florida and Michigan violated the rules and their primaries would not count.

      Now suddenly she thinks she is Al Gore of 2000! How dare she make that comparison.!!!!

      by wishingwell on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:01 PM PDT

      •  2000 IS apt, but she is not on the right side.

        by dnamj on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:27:11 PM PDT

      •  remember

        In March 2000, 50%  (HALF!) of all McCain supporters would not vote for Bush in 2000.

        In OCTOBER it was still 39%

        On Nov 7, 2000, That number was actually less than 1%

        Right now its only 33% of clinton supporters saying the same.  Its not likely to stay that high

        by ScrewySquirrel on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:20 PM PDT

  •  I've always been in favor...

    Of the delegate apportionment to be based upon population. It's the only fair way--even with the apportion of superdelegates, which should only be made up of the original intent; namely, elected members of Congress and top state elected officials.

    That way Puerto Rico would be represented as it should, as would Guam. And I, too, have always favored statehood for the island; Puerto Ricans deserve it--if, as Kos said, they vote for it.

    by GainesT1958 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:07:22 PM PDT

  •  Excellent observations

    Both the delegate count of Puerto Rico and the fact that the Clintons have shown themselves to be weasels.

    by LanceThruster on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM PDT

  •  Forget the Clintons, listen to Puerto Ricans

    for Obama - those of you who speak Spanish:

    a mother and daughter in Puerto Rico for Obama who speak eloquently for our candidate.

    by Deoliver47 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:23:57 PM PDT

  •  You Forgot Oregon! 52 Delegates

    Don't be like the Clintons and forget Oregon

    by sea2008 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:47:50 PM PDT

    •  Oregon

      has 65 delegates. I was including total number, which includes supers.

      by kos on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:21:13 PM PDT

•  As far as I am concerned

  the no-bashing-Hillary moratorium is over. If they want to lie, cheat and steal their way to this nomination, then let's really let it all out about who these people are and what they really represent.

  They are all about Bill and Hillary and the only represent Bill and Hillary.

  They sicken me.

  by Slatersan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM PDT

  •  Fighting the last war

    I'd only suggest you not fall into the trap of fighting the last war. We won and they lost. But continuing to bash the Clintons isn't going to get us closer to the win we need in November.

    by lapis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:37:18 PM PDT

    •  I am only speaking the truth about

      Bill and Hillary. I held back after North Carolina/Indiana because everyone was beginning to agree it's over and I didn't want to cause more trouble between Obama and Clinton supporters (I was concerned about the delicate psyches of the Clintonites).

      But, if they want to continue down this road paved with bullshit, then they will have it flung right back at them. I, and a lot of others like me, have tried to play nice, but the Clintons don't seem to care.

      They only care about themselves. And they are pathetic people.

      by Slatersan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:40:34 PM PDT

      •  I'd suggest that what they care about is

        their ticket to prominence.  What's going to happen to Clinton's Global Initiative if his wife doesn't control the White House?  What's going to happen to the monopolists, if their woman in the White House isn't in control of regulatory and supervisory agencies?  How do the international conglomerates get their way, if they can't count on the DoD to back up their demands?

        It's really the Bush-Clinton cabal that's coming to an end.  

        On what basis can Gates argue that national economic interest can't be a consideration when a contract for fuel tankers is being let?  What's being traded for the well-being of our domestic work force?  Is it the ability of corporations to work their will on other nations?  Why should we mortgage our workers' well-being for corporate success?  

        by hannah on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:08:23 PM PDT

    •  I agree that we've already won the nomination

      battle, and perhaps bashing the Clintons won't bring us any closer to victory in November.  But what it will accomplish is diminishing their role in the party, and that's an essential process as we move forward.

      There's is no indication that the Clintons will support a President Obama or is legislative agenda, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest they'll continue to undermine his success.

      So don't label this as fighting the last war. It's another important battle that must be waged.

      by rontun on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:08 PM PDT

      •  Agree

        Anyone who thinks they will be cooperative team players after the nomination hasn't been paying attention.  Obama, the DNC--everyone will need to have eyes in the backs of their heads from here on out.

        by Heart of the Rockies on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:54:34 PM PDT

        •  There is no evidence that they'll be cooperative.

          They both want the limelight.

          by Ma Joad on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:03:25 PM PDT

      •  Yes, the Clintons know full well

        that their monopolist backers ALWAYS have a horse in both camps and someone waiting to take Hillary's place--just like Bill was promoted in Bush One's place.

        by hannah on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:58 PM PDT

    •  If I were a psychologist I would say

      that we should just ignore them and let them have a good drenching catharsis. Let them get it out of their system, and when they're ready to eat their green beans let them come downstairs and sit back down at the table as though nothing happened.

      by frankzappatista on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM PDT

      •  Problem is that the Clintons suffer from NPD...

        The problem is that they both suffer from an acute and severe form of Narcisstic Personality Disorder (NPD), which does not get out of your system except with serious treatment.

        Per Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/... symptoms of NPD are:

        "A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[1]

          1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
          2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
          3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique
          4. requires excessive admiration
          5. has a sense of entitlement
          6. is interpersonally exploitative
          7. lacks empathy
          8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
          9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes"

        To me, this defines both Hillary and Bill Clinton to a tee!

        by seattlegirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:19:58 PM PDT

        •  You've described the acutes

          for which blogging at Hillaryis44 etc is symptomatic although it places them in the minority of the whole. The rest are chronics. They can be passified without shock treatment.

          by frankzappatista on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:35:43 PM PDT

    •  I was with you until she started comparing

      Florida and Michigan during this primary to the Election of 2000 and the Florida recount. That is over the top ridiculous and uncalled for. And then she is telling all her supporters and every crowd that more people voted for her. And she continues to say ONLY she can unite Democrats for the Fall.

      You are right, it is over and I should ignore this crap. But still, it is downright irritating.

      by wishingwell on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:00:33 PM PDT

      •  I think it less about bashing Clintons at this

        point and more about people just wanting to move forward and get the primary behind us and unite to beat McCain. But then you have Hillary out there with her surrogates saying the American people do not want this to be over and they want more primaries and so on.  

        by wishingwell on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM PDT

      •  FL and MI 2008 = FL 2000

        Ignoring the rules and claiming victory anyway. She's correct to make the comparison, but she has it backwards.

        by dnamj on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM PDT

    •  Excuse me, but the war isn't over.

      Let's not be counting the chickens just yet, since all we've got is a LOT of eggs. Obama is NOT the nominee yet, and the Clintons are doing everything they can to continue to see to it that he won't be. Just because we can do simple arithmetic and know that she can't win by the rules, doesn't mean she won't win.

      Her comparison to Florida 2000 is apt, but she is not the Gore.

      by dnamj on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:26:34 PM PDT

      •  He won't technically be the nominee until the

        convention. But that doesn't mean we haven't won. We have. I realize Clinton is still trying to forge a coup, but if she were to manage to steal the election (unlikely), it wouldn't negate our win.

        by lapis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:14 PM PDT

  •  And the millions of...

    ...potential Obama suporters who voted for Hillary sicken you, also?

    by TheOrchid on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:51:50 PM PDT

•  AMEN

  It's clear this mess of a nomination process the Democrats devised is in desperate need of a top-bottom overhaul.

  Agreed.

  by racerx on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM PDT

  •  But let's not just fight the last war

    The temptation for the party officials/insiders will be to "fix" the process so that the problems of this primary season won't happen again.  Just as the army tends to plan for the next war as if it was the prior one.

    I envision proposals to throw out caucuses and proportional delegate allocation.  Even to move to a popular vote system.  

    If grass/net roots activists don't have a big say in the upcoming reforms, we could find ourselves climbing a much bigger mountain next primary season.

    by DocAtom on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM PDT

    •  Proportional delegate system

      is so important.  We must keep it, even if we tinker with other aspects of the process.  And quite frankly, I think to caucus, have a popular vote or some combo thereof should be left to the states  Each state is different in its history and culture.  So long as every state has a means for calculating proportional allocation of delegates, I can live with diversity.

      by Heart of the Rockies on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:42 PM PDT

      •  Proportional system is awesome

        I think it could be an excellent model for changing the electoral college for national elections to proportional (only works if nearly all states do it at once though).

        Sadly that would offset my favorite reason for keeping the electoral college around at all, that is the removal of incentive to cheat in very lop-sided states.

        by snolan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:16:13 PM PDT

    •  Throwing out caucuses...

      Is a non-starter, as states (not the state parties) administer (and pay for) the primaries.

      Getting states to spend extra money to avoid the state party having a caucus seems like a tough sell to many states for whom tax revenue will be declining in the coming years (due to Bubbles Greenspans' subprime timebomb).

      I guess you could force state parties to have a primary vote instead of a caucus, but again, this would require the DNC sending extra cash to the state parties (as primaries are generally more expensive to administer).

      by sacrelicious on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:47:07 PM PDT

•  Well per DNC rules

  Puerto Rico gets a "bonus" in delegates for not moving their primary up and keeping it in June.

  Perhaps that is skewing the numbers a little.

  by wmtriallawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:32:00 PM PDT

  •  Four bonus delegates for that, I believe

    by melvin on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM PDT

    •  That's it?

      OK, then something is a wee bit off then.

      Kos has a good point.

      by wmtriallawyer on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM PDT

      •  If you took away the four, they would be about in

        line population wise.

        But I disagree with the whole premise of minimizing even further the representation of American citizens. Given it is an anomalous situation, but it seems a progressive view would seek to expand representation and the franchise, not shrink them.

        by melvin on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:10 PM PDT

        •  Well, no.

          I'm all for expanding enfranchisement, but that argument doesn't hold here.  The question is whether the apportionment of delegates is fair across our various states and territories, not whether one place is being disenfranchised.

          by Bindle on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:50:04 PM PDT

          •  The diary objects to a territory, in this case PR

            having more say than a state. The implication is that they have too much power and some needs to be taken away. I disagree. There are all sorts of things one could take exception to about the Dem delegate selection process, starting with the fact that there is a different one fore each state, and that many are quite opaque.

            But PR's number of delegates seems the least of the problems.

            by melvin on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM PDT

            •  well then maybe let them vote in General election

              then it would make more sense.

              by wishingwell on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:03:54 PM PDT

              •  It is kind of weird that PR could

                select the Democratic nominee to represent us in the states but cannot vote on the presidential election. I would take comfort if PR were a state, at least it can mean an extra blue state (and electorial votes) in our column.

                by acnetj on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:36:58 PM PDT

          •  "No taxation without representation"

            Since Puerto Rico, Guam, et. al. are essentially governed by the U.S., but have no vote on our highest offices, I see no reason to disenfranchise their bit-of-a-voice in nominating our candidates.

            by eztempo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:13 PM PDT

            •  Most Puerto Ricans...

              don't pay federal income taxes.

              by rashomon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:06:36 PM PDT

              •  But Puerto Ricans do pay other taxes n/t

                by Deoliver47 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:46 PM PDT

                •  Local taxes

                  And they vote for a governor and legislature.

                  by kos on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:23:03 PM PDT

                  •  Yes - true -nowadays

                    The old ones were appointed - Munoz Marin was the first one elected in '48.

                    by Deoliver47 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:45:41 PM PDT

                  •  They pay FICA too n/t

                    by Deoliver47 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:46:23 PM PDT

              •  It was a rhetorical flourish...

                ...intended to remind folks of the principles of our Founding, that we all hold so dear.

                That said, can I get a tax dodge by having a PO Box "residence" in San Juan?  (he-he.)

                by eztempo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM PDT

                •  Not so rhetorical for us

                  Here in DC we get the taxation without representation and we really do pay federal income taxes.  And all our laws have to be approved by Congress before they take effect.  And that includes our budget, which is how we spend our STATE taxes.  Oh, and we provide infrastructure to support jobs for hundreds of thousands of MD and VA residents who are exempt from paying state taxes to DC on the income they earn in the District. And did I mention that our homeland security funding goes to things like security for World Bank/IMF meetings and Bush's re-inaugural balls?

                  by Steve G on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:18:44 PM PDT

                  •  Yes, the DC thing is insane.

                    by Bindle on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:33:17 PM PDT

              •  They do pay US import duties on everything that

                goes into Island from anywhere but US (that's right, all that Federal aid can only be used to purchase stuff from US merchants, not from other countries).

                Essentially PR is stuck in a feudal system where federal aid and food stamps are used to appease the subjects and all the federal aid they get (plus any wealth they generate in local businesses - which is way more than the federal aid) can only be spent buying items from middlemen in US.  For this reason an American car costs 20-30% more (local import duties plus all of the middle men) and European cars are >50% more (first imported into US, pay US import duties and have US dealers make $, and then sold through 1-2 more middle men to local dealers after paying local duties).

                by DefendOurConstitution on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:49:22 PM PDT

        •  I agree with your disagreement.

          and it's not 4 bonus delegates, it's 11. Puerto Rico's base delegate vote is 44 (Green Papers). I assume that is based on population. The number rises to 55 with the bonus district and add-on delegates. 8 supers brings their total delegation to 63.

          and I would add:

          Kos seems to be viewing this through a national, governmental prism. But it's really just a party question. Puerto Ricans are citizens, and as such have just as much right to representation in the Democratic Party as any other citizen. The Party is not giving delegates to any State or Territory, it is giving delegates to the State or Territory's Democratic voters, to elect as they see fit.

          by along on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:32:01 PM PDT

        •  When they are a state

          they can have greater representation than half our states.

          Until then, they may be American citizens, but they don't have a say in the general election (unless they move to the mainland, of course).

          by kos on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:25:03 PM PDT

      •  Yes, I 've never understood this.

        I believe Puerto Rico has no electoral college votes.  If they cannot vote for President in the electoral college, they may not even have a vote in the general election because of their Commonwealth status.  

        Can citizens in U.S. Territories vote for President?

        No, the Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U.S. Territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa to vote for President. Unless citizens in U.S. Territories have official residency (domicile) in a U.S. State or the District of Columbia (and vote by absentee ballot or travel to their State to vote), they cannot vote in the Presidential election. Note that prior to the adoption of the 23rd Amendment, DC residents could not vote in the Presidential election.

        The political parties may authorize voters in primary elections in Territories to select delegates to represent them at the political party conventions. But that process does not affect the Electoral College system.

        electoral-college/faq.

        by TomP on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:44:49 PM PDT

        •  Blame

          the Constitution.

          Electoral votes are given to states and states only.  When and if PR becomes a state, they get EVs too.

          by J Royale on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:17:55 PM PDT

          •  I don't mind the people of PR deciding

            whether to become a state or independent, but I don't think being a commonwealth should be an option that they can choose.

            by acnetj on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:42:15 PM PDT

•  Why should it's people count

  In terms of the "popular vote" is another good question.  Especially because they will count more than Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington.

  by rdxtion on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:32:00 PM PDT

  •  "popular vote"

    only matters in the clinton-bizarro world.

    by ratador on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:33:57 PM PDT

  •  yeah, but they get NO EVs

    so that doesn't mesh with her "I'm winning the electoral college" thing. But we know Clinton's various spinnings have never meshed together.

    by MingPicket on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:38:27 PM PDT

    •  If we were on planet HILLARY

      She would already be queen and I would have a million bucks.  Saying it don't make it so.

      by rdxtion on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:35 PM PDT

      •  She's "The Queen of Outer Space"

        by internationaljock on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:59:20 PM PDT

        •  No way--other worlds hate her

          I don't know what polls you are reading, but the Klingons have said repeatedly that they will vote for McCain before they will vote for Hillary, and everybody knows the Vulcans will stay home if she gets the nomination. Obviously, she has the Romulans in her pocket and they control a lot of the media.

          by jneufnyc on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:09:47 PM PDT

          •  Didn't you know liberals control the media

            Everywhere except Planet HILLARY where Fox News runs fair and balanced coverage 24/7.

            by rdxtion on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:16:01 PM PDT

            •  And Karl Rove's "analysis" is a good reason to...

              stay in a Democratic Primary race that she has NO chance of winning because it shows that Hillary is the more "electable" one.

              As a former Republican, let me tell you the only thing that will stop a Democrat from winning the WhiteHouse this year (with Bush's dismal approval rating, the war in Iraq, the economy in a state of disarray) is having Hillary Clinton anywhere on the Democratic Ticket (as President or VP).

              Hillary is toxic to the Democratic Party's chances of winning the WH in November, and Karl Rove knows this and that is why he wants her to be either the Democratic Nominee for President or VP.

              Hillary is the most despised woman in America!

              by seattlegirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:28:53 PM PDT

              •  I agree completely

                I hate the Unity ticket idea.  How can Obama turn the page when the self-agrandizing Clintons are his VPs?  If Barack chooses her for his VP then I don't think I could maintain a lot of respect for him after all the RACIST things her campaign has done.  That behavior cannot be reward.

                by rdxtion on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:49:14 PM PDT

  •  Because they are US Citizens, the question

    should not be why they get so much representation in Democratic Primary but why don't the have any representation in Congress (ok they do have a "representative" with voice but no vote) plus why don't people that are US Citizens - and have sacrificed so many in many wars (WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq) - have no voice in electing a President.

    The real question is why are Puerto Ricans treated literally like second class citizens and the answer has a lot to do with Washington politics.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:25:42 PM PDT

    •  That's a good question too

      I think Guam, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico should all get a representative.

      by rdxtion on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:42:32 AM PDT

  •  because they gave us bomba plena & salsa

    ;~)

    by juancito on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:36:13 PM PDT

•  Especially a territory whose citizens

  can't vote in the general in November.

  by edsbrooklyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:32:29 PM PDT

  •  Are you serious?

    What in the hell is going on here?  I had no idea about any of this.

    by exiledfromTN on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:35:35 PM PDT

    •  It's true.

      A friend who moved here many years ago to become a child psychologist told me this after the election in 2004.  She said it was one of the reasons she chose to move.  She wanted her voice heard.

      by edsbrooklyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:38:25 PM PDT

      •  I agree, I think the territories should either

        vote in both primary and general elections or not at all...and it seems more fair that they should vote in both, then.

        by wishingwell on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM PDT

        •  Puerto Ricans get drafted

          Puerto Ricans have been in every War since Puerto Rico was seized by the US.  

          Puerto Ricans are dying in Iraq right now.

          There are four million PR's in the US.  Many also have family, or land or homes on the island.  

          Frankly I think the Constitution should be amended to give PR the vote in the GE.  

          by Deoliver47 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:31:34 PM PDT

          •  A way without changing the constitution

            is to become a state.

            Being a commonwealth should not be an option. Either become a US state or independent.

            by acnetj on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM PDT

            •  They would probably become a state

              if the US didn't put language conditions in.  

              by Deoliver47 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:43:11 PM PDT

          •  They could just become a state

            Only State have the right to vote in the Presidential election because EV's are determined by a State's representation in Congress.  Since PR has no representation in Congress they get 0 EV's, and that is the way it should be.

            If they want to have a voice in the national government they have to become a State, which they are perfectly capable of doing if they so choose.  If they choose not to become a State they choose to not have the rights of s State.

            by Quanta on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM PDT

            •  If the US is ready to become bilingual

              Statehood might be more appealing; but if I were Puerto Rican (on la Isla) I might be concerned that my culture could eventually be disintegrated, like that of Hawaii. Or New Mexico...

              Could a State of PR hold trials and issue judicial decision in Spanish? etc.

              by juancito on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:50:12 PM PDT

          •  Hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans served

            in US Armed forces in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

            I still remember my next door neighbor coming home after he was shot in Vietnam.  His question that I can't forget 40 years later was: how come I get a purple heart but yet cannot vote for the commander in chief?

            by DefendOurConstitution on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:28:55 PM PDT

    •  Really

      Did you sleep through your government class in high school?

      Electoral votes are part of the Constitution and are awarded to the states based on how many representatives and senators they have.  PR, not being a state, doesn't get any EVs.

      by J Royale on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:20:14 PM PDT

      •  My government class in high school

        taught me more about Jesus than it did anything about government.  So much for a private education.

        by exiledfromTN on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:00:21 PM PDT

  •  Residents.

    If they stay in PR, they can't vote; if they move to one of the 50 states or DC, they can vote.

    by Brooke In Seattle on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:37:31 PM PDT

  •  Exactly. This makes no sense.

    I've been wondering if I was hallucinating ever since I learned that PR was going to wrap up the nominating process. W! T! F! ?????

    Anyway, thanks, Kos. It does seem, to the uninitiated observer, to be a valid question. And, like Florida and Michigan, it will be mercilessly exploited by the Clintons, and the DNC will have no one to blame but themselves. But I have to ask: is it the DLC-controlled Democratic party that set up this mess? IF so - what a surprise.

    My fantasy is that the Clintons and their corporate trojan horse, the DLC, have made themselves so politically toxic that even the Democratic party will no longer take them seriously; and we can get the Democratic party, and maybe even our country, back.

    by obiterdictum on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:44:29 PM PDT

•  How many supers?

  ...are they given more population-wise to make up for lack of SuperD's?

  by Randomfactor on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:32:36 PM PDT

  •  I think they have seven

    if I recall right now it is 4-2 Clinton.

    by psycho liberal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:34:17 PM PDT

•  Give 'em a break

  It's Puerto Rico. They're a territory. They get all the responsibilities of statehood and none of the respect! ;-)

  by droogie6655321 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:32:45 PM PDT

  •  No, they don't

    They pay no Federal Income Tax.   They get a lot of benefits without all of the responsibilities.  

    I am not complaining about that, but I do think it is wrong to weigh their vote so heavily when they have no say in November.   We might as well let Canadian Citizen choose our nominees based on who they like.

    Clinton is evil.  There is no getting around that now, and her supporters at this point are also evil.
    Now she is upping her claims that Obama disenfranchised Michigan by following the rules.  She is also claiming that Caucuses are unfair and shouldnt count because she didn't win them.  Well F*ck her and the horse she rode in on.

    I hope all those false Democrats over at mydd really see the beast for who she is.

    by smoosh21 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:37:03 PM PDT

    •  Try Talk Left too, they're having a hell of

      a discussion over this as we speak.....yikes.

      by ksh01 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:42:34 PM PDT

      •  Day yum!

        I just went there to take a look.  These people are on the DEMOCRATIC side?  Do they not know that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan?  Hillary won that state the way the Soviet dictators won the elections in the USSR, but that's okay?  And legitimate?  

        I can prove how popular I am, too, if I get to be alone on the ballot as in Michigan and, as in the case of Florida, the other guy doesn't campaign.  Obama - stupid, honorable rule-follower!

        Karen in Austin

        by Wife of Bath on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:53:14 PM PDT

        •  Wife of Bath - I had not heard it stated that way

          before, but it is seems a very appropriate analogy.  

          Hillary won that state the way the Soviet dictators won the elections in the USSR, but that's okay?

          by Amber6541 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:11:37 PM PDT

        •  Heh. Jeralyn (who I respect a great deal)

          followed Armando's post with a story that said Hillary is ahead in the popular vote and tough luck to Obama that he didn't include his name on it.  He gets squat in her calculus.

          I truly don't know what to make of what looks like folks going nuts over Clinton.  I know it's a small segment of people, but jeez, I don't get it.

          by ksh01 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:30:20 PM PDT

          •  It reminds me very much of the Conservative Reps.

            It reminds me very much of the wingnuts who have hijacked the Republican Party...the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, and Bill O'Reillys of the world.

            I used to be a Republican until the neo-conservatives made their wacked agenda the GOP mantra. :(

            by seattlegirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:35:32 PM PDT

            •  Glad they pissed you off so we get another

              dem.

              I worry about these strident voices urged us toward conflict as if the only alternative to Clinton is losing in November.  

              by ksh01 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:49:38 PM PDT

        •  Agreed, but...

          ...if someone is the only one on the ballot because of proper procedures in a rule-abiding election, that's not usually seen as a serious problem.  The problem here isn't that there was only one name on the ballot.  

          The problem is WHY there was only one name on the ballot (and no campaign, either, for that matter).

          Consider how many people run unopposed for office.  I would call that a problem, but it's of a different kind, resulting from failures of various political parties to put up viable candidates.

          by Geoffrey Williamson on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM PDT

    •  They're not horribly oppressed...