4 ms·

Well the abstainers were explicitly against being a state so I don’t think it makes sense to just put them with the majority.

• WorldMaker 4y ago
  The abstainers weren't being explicit about that in the vote itself. They left an implicit vote so it could be (and was!) interpreted however one liked. That said, most of my awareness is Wikipedia and second-hand account, but I heard most of the abstainers weren't protesting "against statehood" but against the meaningless nature of the vote itself because it was non-binding to anyone, its results weren't going to be used to do anything (and indeed did not ultimately matter other than a couple of wishy-washy President Obama words but no actions). I'm probably wrong on that interpretation, too, but the two votes after the 2012 vote seem to align with that: there is a desire for statehood over alternatives, but that there also seems to a feeling of neglect that they can vote all they want and Congress itself has yet to certify the votes or to make the necessary movements towards an actual, binding vote.