Not so, actually. While in 1967, the vote was soundly in favor of remaining a commonwealth (65.9% voter turnout), in 1998 the vote was pretty evenly split, with 50.5% voting for remaining a commonwealth and 46.6% voting for statehood (voter turnout was about 71%). Where it gets interesting, however, are the 2012 and 2017 votes.You all understand that Puerto Ricans have consistently rejected statehood and you're essentially discussing forced total annexation, right?
Just to clarify, because they breakdown might obfuscate the math. Of the 54% who voted to change status in 2012, approximately 61.2% voted to be a state. Which means roughly 33% actually voted for statehood. They didn't ignore the results because a bunch were blank, rather a bunch were blank because the people voting to keep the status quo weren't answering the second question because they already essentially voted against all 3 options.Not so, actually. While in 1967, the vote was soundly in favor of remaining a commonwealth (65.9% voter turnout), in 1998 the vote was pretty evenly split, with 50.5% voting for remaining a commonwealth and 46.6% voting for statehood (voter turnout was about 71%). Where it gets interesting, however, are the 2012 and 2017 votes.
In 2012, Puerto Ricans were asked two questions. Whether or not to continue Puerto Rico's territorial status (54% said no), and if not whether it should be a state (61.2%), independent (5.5%), or a sovereign nation with free association with the US (33.3%). Congress chose to ignore the results on the grounds that 500,000 additional submitted ballots were blank.
The 2017 results erred more towards "Free Associated State", but this was exceptional in its own right as turnout was anomalously abyssal, with only 23% voter turnout.
They submitted another bill on the matter (H.R. 4901) in 2019, and they've scheduled another referendum vote for November 3 this year.
Pretty much. With four more Senators for the Dems and a likely expansion of the Supreme Court, the GOP would be politically mutilated. Add to that the fact that many of them are facing criminal investigations as we speak. If Dems take over, those investigations won't be swept under a rug.f Dems then moved to make Washington DC and Puerto Rico States, Would the GOP finally be done in for?
How Puerto Ricans view themselves is irrelevant to how they have been treated. Why does McConnell scream socialism when Puerto Rico Statehood is brought up? The supreme court decisions on Puerto Rico were in fact extremely racist, trying to tip toe around that and twist it into something else does not change what happened hereJust to clarify, because they breakdown might obfuscate the math. Of the 54% who voted to change status in 2012, approximately 61.2% voted to be a state. Which means roughly 33% actually voted for statehood. They didn't ignore the results because a bunch were blank, rather a bunch were blank because the people voting to keep the status quo weren't answering the second question because they already essentially voted against all 3 options.
And like, that sort of question splitting is ridiculous. Like, why would you answer those questions separately like that? What if the majority of those who voted for statehood also voted to continue territorial status? That makes the results of the second question completely meaningless, we can't possibly know what percentage of people actually prefer statehood over continued territory status because of the way they wrote the ballot.
So in 1967, they voted against statehood. In 1998 they voted against statehood. In 2012 they voted against statehood. And in 2017 they boycotted the vote. Even if you spin it as though maybe they're slowly coming around to the idea, that doesn't even remotely justify the "Puerto Rico deserves to be a state, it's just those meany Republicans being racist again" sentiment in this thread. Practically every data point you can find indicates Puerto Ricans see themselves as an independent entity
They likely would still have to adjust the courts due to just how bad the justices are that have been appointed. If the judges they put into place legalize gerrymandering and outlaw Universal healthcare, welfare, and other safety net programs, we will not be able to make any improvements at all and essentially will tie the hands of congress regardless of who has the majority. We will STILL have to restructure the courts to either put more judges on the bench to offset the 200+ Trump appointments or get 2/3rsds majority in congress at some point to impeach them all and make constitutional amendments keeping them from breaking the public safety net again. That is the only way we can really prevent them from doing this much damage again from a mass disinformation campaign and voter suppression.Ahh, this would be a good solution to get more democratic representation without having to pull any bs with supreme court numbers. Or at least it would make republicans have to appear less racist since there is suddenly another state with a decent number of brown people they can't just ignore.
A purge of the lower courts is something that I think has been done a few times, right?They likely would still have to adjust the courts due to just how bad the justices are that have been appointed. If the judges they put into place legalize gerrymandering and outlaw Universal healthcare, welfare, and other safety net programs, we will not be able to make any improvements at all and essentially will tie the hands of congress regardless of who has the majority. We will STILL have to restructure the courts to either put more judges on the bench to offset the 200+ Trump appointments or get 2/3rsds majority in congress at some point to impeach them all and make constitutional amendments keeping them from breaking the public safety net again. That is the only way we can really prevent them from doing this much damage again from a mass disinformation campaign and voter suppression.
When they have appointed judges so corrupt as to go in and overrule old cases they had no involvement in to rule in favor of banks and outlaw minimum wage increases and undermine state constitutional amendments by the people, we are left with no choice but to intervene. Hell if we have any hope of prosecuting any GOP for their crimes, we are going to have to make sure Trump appointees cant go anywhere near the cases.
It is still hell to impeach any federal judge so we might as well solve the problem if we ever get to the point to be able to do so. Just looking at any of Trump's current nominees, leaving them on the court at all would risk lives for generations.A purge of the lower courts is something that I think has been done a few times, right?
Except you're wrong for the 2012 vote, as can be seen when you check the actual figures.Just to clarify, because they breakdown might obfuscate the math. Of the 54% who voted to change status in 2012, approximately 61.2% voted to be a state. Which means roughly 33% actually voted for statehood. They didn't ignore the results because a bunch were blank, rather a bunch were blank because the people voting to keep the status quo weren't answering the second question because they already essentially voted against all 3 options.
And like, that sort of question splitting is ridiculous. Like, why would you answer those questions separately like that? What if the majority of those who voted for statehood also voted to continue territorial status? That makes the results of the second question completely meaningless, we can't possibly know what percentage of people actually prefer statehood over continued territory status because of the way they wrote the ballot.
So in 1967, they voted against statehood. In 1998 they voted against statehood. In 2012 they voted against statehood. And in 2017 they boycotted the vote. Even if you spin it as though maybe they're slowly coming around to the idea, that doesn't even remotely justify the "Puerto Rico deserves to be a state, it's just those meany Republicans being racist again" sentiment in this thread. Practically every data point you can find indicates Puerto Ricans see themselves as an independent entity
Ok, now imagine the questions are switched.Except you're wrong for the 2012 vote, as can be seen when you check the actual figures.
The two questions on the ballot were as follows:
Question 1: āDo you agree that Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of territorial status?ā
Question 2: āIrrespective of your answer to the first question, indicate which of the following non-territorial options you prefer.ā
From most votes to least
970,910 votes against remaining a territory
834,191 votes for becoming a state
828,077 votes for remaining a territory
498,604 blank ballots (Question 2)
454,768 votes for free association
74,895 votes for independence
67,267 blank ballots (Question 1)
That is not voting against statehood, and it certainly isn't voting for independence.
You question why the two questions are split. The basic logic goes as follows: Should we remain a territory? 54% vote no. Motion passes. Since we have voted to no longer remain a territory, we must now ask what it is we want to become. The options are a state, an independence, or a sovereign free associated state. This is not just a vote for everyone who voted against territory status. We're in this together, so everyone gets to vote. In coding terms, it's a nested hierarchy. Question 2 only becomes relevant in the event that a majority vote against territory status in question 1.
Not really. Federally, lower court judges are only really removed for serious breaches of judicial protocol, usually criminal. Most just retire either back into the legal profession or into a full retirement. Removal for political purposes, even valid ones, would be a fairly extreme act of congress that I doubt there is an appetite for even among the most die hard progressives in the Senate. It would suck up all the political oxygen that could be better spent on more substantive law.A purge of the lower courts is something that I think has been done a few times, right?
To be blunt, tstorm, you should not condescend to people when you yourself do not understand the subject matter.Ok, now imagine the questions are switched.
Question 1: "Do you agree that Puerto Rico should become a US state?"
Question 2: "Irrespective of your answer to the first question, which of the non-state options do you prefer."
Roughly translating the data (since we don't have question 2 broken down by question 1s answers and we can't know the actual breakdown), you'd likely end up with something between 30-50% voting for statehood. Which would be less than 50%, making the second question relevant (since we're all in this together) at which point state beats out the other two by a mile. You can put the other 2 options in as the first question and find the same result. When you have 4 options and none have a majority, whichever you put in that first question is eliminated by default, even if it has plurality support.
Imagine instead you have a room of people deciding on takeout. The options are pizza, burgers, chinese, or burritos. 40% want pizza, 30% want burgers, 20% want chinese food, and 10% want burritos. If you just do a vote, pizza wins. If instead you ask "do we want pizza or not pizza?", not pizza wins with 60%. And then if you repoll, and the pizza group splits even between burgers and chinese, the burgers wins. You've structured the question in a way as to deliberately not pick the most popular option. This crap is why people were leaving ballots blank and boycotting referendums, because the ballots are designed to sway the outcome. Imagine a US ballot done that way, where the first question is yes or no to the Democratic Party, and then a followup is "Regardless of your first answer, who is your choice among the other options." A third of all US presidents were elected without a simple majority, most of whom won the popular vote, there were just more than 2 candidates. You could flip any of those elections with that phrasing.
You can't possibly support that nonsense, can you?
You think explaining the problem with the method there is condescending?To be blunt, tstorm, you should not condescend to people when you yourself do not understand the subject matter.
It is not "structured to deliberately not pick the most popular option". It's designed to try and avoid one of the central problems of "first past the post" voting, namely a split vote yielding a result that the majority would find unpalatable. The questions boil down to "Do you want to maintain the status quo?" and "If the status quo is not maintained, what is your preferred alternative?" We can quibble about whether or not this is the best approach until the cows come home, but the simple fact remains that when you say that "they voted against statehood in 2012", you're wrong.
No, I think "You can't possibly support that nonsense, can you?" is condescending. As I said, however, "we can quibble about whether or not this is the best approach until the cows come home", but you are in no uncertain terms pushing a falsehood when you try to spin the 2012 results as "voting against statehood".You think explaining the problem with the method there is condescending?
There are alternatives to "first past the post" voting, but this ain't a good one. To start with, it didn't avoid the problem that you say it did. The supposed winning vote for statehood was only voted for on 44% of the ballots. The majority didn't find that option palatable. If they were trying to solve that problem, they could have ranked choice voted. They didn't. Instead, they biased the ballot against only one option.
The majority didn't vote for statehood. Just like the previous ballot measure and those before it.No, I think "You can't possibly support that nonsense, can you?" is condescending. As I said, however, "we can quibble about whether or not this is the best approach until the cows come home", but you are in no uncertain terms pushing a falsehood when you try to spin the 2012 results as "voting against statehood".
Man, I remember a couple years ago when you'd say "just wait a little while longer, the Trump investigations are gonna bear fruit and there will be such a reckoning." At some point, the dream's gotta die, dude.Pretty much. With four more Senators for the Dems and a likely expansion of the Supreme Court, the GOP would be politically mutilated. Add to that the fact that many of them are facing criminal investigations as we speak. If Dems take over, those investigations won't be swept under a rug.
Except the majority did. 970,910 votes against remaining a territory against 828,077 votes for remaining a territory. Majority says they do not want to remain a territory. 834,191 said that if they weren't going to be a territory, they'd prefer to be a state. Majority said they didn't want to be a territory. Majority said they'd prefer to be a state. Hell, there were more votes for statehood than for remaining a territory. It's one thing to argue that the results were somehow prejudiced and thus should be revisited (spoiler: they're voting again in November), but at this point you're simply being revisionist and using creative math to recast the results.The majority didn't vote for statehood. Just like the previous ballot measure and those before it.
The whole thing is an exercise in using creative math to recast the results, and you're taking that exercise as gospel. But ~20% of the second ballot vote was people who voted to remain a territory. Take 20% off the second ballot vote and see where the numbers land: it's closer to 700k votes for statehood if you were to put the questions together.Except the majority did. 970,910 votes against remaining a territory against 828,077 votes for remaining a territory. Majority says they do not want to remain a territory. 834,191 said that if they weren't going to be a territory, they'd prefer to be a state. Majority said they didn't want to be a territory. Majority said they'd prefer to be a state. Hell, there were more votes for statehood than for remaining a territory. It's one thing to argue that the results were somehow prejudiced and thus should be revisited (spoiler: they're voting again in November), but at this point you're simply being revisionist and using creative math to recast the results.
Tstorm, I actually have formally studied analytics and related research, and this falls well within that purview. I'm quite familiar with the trade-offs of splitting and consolidating votes and conditional/nested questions. Moreover, I believe I've made it quite clear in the past that I do not appreciate being treated as an idiot. So unless you want this to devolve into another shouting match of thinly veiled jabs between us, I suggest taking a deep breath and dropping the patronizing "golly gee" attitude.The whole thing is an exercise in using creative math to recast the results, and you're taking that exercise as gospel. But ~20% of the second ballot vote was people who voted to remain a territory. Take 20% off the second ballot vote and see where the numbers land: it's closer to 700k votes for statehood if you were to put the questions together.
Like, imagine 4 choices again, A, B, C, and D. A is preferred by 45% of people, B is 40%, C is 10%, and D is 5%. And imagine if you take away A, the people who prefer A would split among the rest in the same distribution as the others. So first vote you do A or not, and "not" wins 55% to 45%. Then you vote among the remaining 3, and get 73% for B, 18%, and 9% in the second vote. Woah, would you look at that! Option B got 73% compared to option A's measly 45%. That's way more! That's what that ballot was.