4 ms·

Forcing their government to surrender control and become a state goes against the democratic process. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2095366 https://m.huffpos

Forcing their government to surrender control and become a state goes against the democratic process. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2095366 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2095366

drawkbox 9y ago
They recently voted to become a state. Certain groups don't want that to happen for some reason. A referendum on the political status of Puerto Rico was held in Puerto Rico on June 11, 2017. The referendum had three options: becoming a state of the United States, independence/free association, or maintaining the current territorial status. Those who voted overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum...
- fastball 9y ago
  "We want to become a state now that we've run our territory into the ground".
- crusso 9y ago
  I would think that the rest of the sentence that you deleted is important to understanding the vote. ; turnout, however, was 23%, a historically low figure.[3] This figure is attributed to a boycott led by the pro-status quo PPD party.[4]
  - drawkbox 9y ago
    Well voting for president in the US only 57% vote of available voters[1], even lower in non presidential votes or midterms at 40% [2], so is that also not valid since everyone doesn't vote? People choose to vote, if people don't vote to have their say that is their own bad. In the US, if only 57% of people vote, you could say our president is only elected by less than about 30% of the people with the popular vote, half the eligible voters or about a third of the country. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election
    - crusso 9y ago
      The rules of US elections are fairly well spelled-out, so low turn-out results are not contested. In this case, Congress would need to make the decision that is in keeping with the "people of Puerto Rico". If you read further in the referendum link you posted, there are a number of reasons why the referendum was boycotted. I doubt that Congress would want to jump into the middle of such an ambiguous situation and declare Puerto Rico a state by fiat.
    - tertius 9y ago
      How is this relevant to an actual boycott?
      - drawkbox 9y ago
        We are talking low turn out votes, even in the US we have low turnout. People boycott the whole system here and don't vote at all. So you are arguing that our results aren't correct because people stopped voting? If you are saying that because PR had a boycott and some didn't vote that the vote is a fraud, then you could say the same about ANY vote in the US because people boycott or don't vote because they don't believe in the system or think it is rigged etc or many other reasons. That is why you have to vote, boycotting votes is not smart, probably the worst use of a boycott ever as it takes your power away. Usually boycotts are to gain power i.e. not purchasing from a certain company. Boycotting a vote isn't even worth mentioning, it is just not smart.
        tertius 9y ago
        I think the problem with your analysis is that you left out the line of the boycott which is, in this case, quite important. Your comment here about "people don't vote all the time for different reasons" doesn't amount to the situation in PR at all. It's significant, and to ignore it is dishonest. Whether you believe a boycott is "smart" or not.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Those are very different things. U.S. elections are set forth according to the law, are binding, and have legally-defined results. If people don't show up, it means they don't really care about the result and are fine with getting whatever everyone else chooses. The Puerto Rico statehood referendums are not undertaken pursuant to any law and are not binding. It's like the government of Maryland holding a referendum on secession from the U.S. If only a quarter of eligible voters show up, that doesn't mean that everyone else wants to go along with the minority. It means that the majority don't see the effort as legitimate in the first place. (There is a reason why people would view the 2017 referendum as illegitimate. The ballot was biased against the non-statehood options, e.g. calling Puerto Rico's current status that of a "colony").
- bradyd 9y ago
  You left out the rest of the sentence: "Those who voted overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97%; turnout, however, was 23%, a historically low figure."
- comex 9y ago
  Note that the percentage was that high only because of a boycott by the anti-statehood faction. But I’d expect that any attempt to actually grant statehood would be preceded by a new, binding referendum that wouldn’t be boycotted - or at least elections.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jeffbax 9y ago
  This is the same misdirected claim repeated over and over about Catalan, but turnout is boycotted by those who do not want to secede. The politics of integrating Puerto Rico are likely impossible to make it happen anyway.
- rayiner 9y ago
  They have had several referendums over the years, and none have yielded a majority for statehood. This most recent referendum was in favor of statehood, but had less than 23% turnout. Yes, the low turnout was because the parties opposed to statehood boycotted the referendum. But anyone who boycotted the referendum would almost by definition be someone who was going to vote against statehood. The 2012 referendum, in contrast, had 78% turnout. 46% voted to retain the current arrangement, and another 21% voted for either free association or full independence (i.e. increased sovereignty--the opposite of statehood).
ceejayoz 9y ago
How would becoming a state (and gaining senators, congressmen, and electoral votes) be a "surrender" of control? Your article doesn't seem to support this contention at all.
- infecto 9y ago
  Perhaps because PR does not want it? I think that is the concern, PR basically voted it down with their low turnout this last time around.
  - dvdhnt 9y ago
    > PR basically voted it down with their low turnout this last time around. That's not how voting works, though...
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Lots of voting systems have quorum rules. I'm commenting on "voting" in general there, not specifically the referendum. But even with 100% turnout, there's no legal mechanism for Puerto Rico to force Congress to act.
kafkaesq 9y ago
Though downvoted into submission, the above point is perfectly valid. A better stance to take might be: "We need to reiterate to the citizens of Puerto Rico that they are perfectly free to opt for statehood, or independence at any time."

Forcing their government to surrender control and become a state goes against the democratic process. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2095366 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2095366

drawkbox 9y ago

They recently voted to become a state. Certain groups don't want that to happen for some reason. A referendum on the political status of Puerto Rico was held in Puerto Rico on June 11, 2017. The referendum had three options: becoming a state of the United States, independence/free association, or maintaining the current territorial status. Those who voted overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum...

fastball 9y ago
"We want to become a state now that we've run our territory into the ground".
crusso 9y ago
I would think that the rest of the sentence that you deleted is important to understanding the vote. ; turnout, however, was 23%, a historically low figure.[3] This figure is attributed to a boycott led by the pro-status quo PPD party.[4]
- drawkbox 9y ago
  Well voting for president in the US only 57% vote of available voters[1], even lower in non presidential votes or midterms at 40% [2], so is that also not valid since everyone doesn't vote? People choose to vote, if people don't vote to have their say that is their own bad. In the US, if only 57% of people vote, you could say our president is only elected by less than about 30% of the people with the popular vote, half the eligible voters or about a third of the country. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election
  - crusso 9y ago
    The rules of US elections are fairly well spelled-out, so low turn-out results are not contested. In this case, Congress would need to make the decision that is in keeping with the "people of Puerto Rico". If you read further in the referendum link you posted, there are a number of reasons why the referendum was boycotted. I doubt that Congress would want to jump into the middle of such an ambiguous situation and declare Puerto Rico a state by fiat.
  - tertius 9y ago
    How is this relevant to an actual boycott?
    - drawkbox 9y ago
      We are talking low turn out votes, even in the US we have low turnout. People boycott the whole system here and don't vote at all. So you are arguing that our results aren't correct because people stopped voting? If you are saying that because PR had a boycott and some didn't vote that the vote is a fraud, then you could say the same about ANY vote in the US because people boycott or don't vote because they don't believe in the system or think it is rigged etc or many other reasons. That is why you have to vote, boycotting votes is not smart, probably the worst use of a boycott ever as it takes your power away. Usually boycotts are to gain power i.e. not purchasing from a certain company. Boycotting a vote isn't even worth mentioning, it is just not smart.
      - tertius 9y ago
        I think the problem with your analysis is that you left out the line of the boycott which is, in this case, quite important. Your comment here about "people don't vote all the time for different reasons" doesn't amount to the situation in PR at all. It's significant, and to ignore it is dishonest. Whether you believe a boycott is "smart" or not.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Those are very different things. U.S. elections are set forth according to the law, are binding, and have legally-defined results. If people don't show up, it means they don't really care about the result and are fine with getting whatever everyone else chooses. The Puerto Rico statehood referendums are not undertaken pursuant to any law and are not binding. It's like the government of Maryland holding a referendum on secession from the U.S. If only a quarter of eligible voters show up, that doesn't mean that everyone else wants to go along with the minority. It means that the majority don't see the effort as legitimate in the first place. (There is a reason why people would view the 2017 referendum as illegitimate. The ballot was biased against the non-statehood options, e.g. calling Puerto Rico's current status that of a "colony").
bradyd 9y ago
You left out the rest of the sentence: "Those who voted overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97%; turnout, however, was 23%, a historically low figure."
comex 9y ago
Note that the percentage was that high only because of a boycott by the anti-statehood faction. But I’d expect that any attempt to actually grant statehood would be preceded by a new, binding referendum that wouldn’t be boycotted - or at least elections.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jeffbax 9y ago
This is the same misdirected claim repeated over and over about Catalan, but turnout is boycotted by those who do not want to secede. The politics of integrating Puerto Rico are likely impossible to make it happen anyway.
rayiner 9y ago
They have had several referendums over the years, and none have yielded a majority for statehood. This most recent referendum was in favor of statehood, but had less than 23% turnout. Yes, the low turnout was because the parties opposed to statehood boycotted the referendum. But anyone who boycotted the referendum would almost by definition be someone who was going to vote against statehood. The 2012 referendum, in contrast, had 78% turnout. 46% voted to retain the current arrangement, and another 21% voted for either free association or full independence (i.e. increased sovereignty--the opposite of statehood).

ceejayoz 9y ago

How would becoming a state (and gaining senators, congressmen, and electoral votes) be a "surrender" of control? Your article doesn't seem to support this contention at all.

infecto 9y ago
Perhaps because PR does not want it? I think that is the concern, PR basically voted it down with their low turnout this last time around.
- dvdhnt 9y ago
  > PR basically voted it down with their low turnout this last time around. That's not how voting works, though...
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Lots of voting systems have quorum rules. I'm commenting on "voting" in general there, not specifically the referendum. But even with 100% turnout, there's no legal mechanism for Puerto Rico to force Congress to act.

kafkaesq 9y ago

Though downvoted into submission, the above point is perfectly valid. A better stance to take might be: "We need to reiterate to the citizens of Puerto Rico that they are perfectly free to opt for statehood, or independence at any time."