That specific referendum had… issues. First off, before you cite that one as incontrovertible proof, it was wildly out of line with previous referendums and, in effect, was boycotted by the majority of voters. While I suppose it’s not inherently mathematically impossible, the results were more or less unbelievable as an expression of the actual will of the voters.
The upcoming referendum in just a few weeks should have more usefulness as a guide, since it boils the issue down and should be better-attended as a referendum. And there is a non-trivial chance that this time the pro-Statehood faction will have a clear advantage.
I believe the Trump administration says retrocession is unconstitutional, so as long as we’re declaring the current partisan control of the federal government to be a permanent obstacle, retrocession is also not an option.
If you don’t accept the outcome of the 2017 referendum, a majority voted for statehood in the previous referendum of 2012. Statehood was also the first choice in the 1998 referendum.
The upcoming referendum will be the sixth referendum in which Puerto Ricans are asked to vote on their desire for statehood. It seems they have developed into a delaying tactic rather than an actual source of information.
The Trump administration won’t be around forever. It may not even be around in four months. Republicans in general have spoken of their willingness to support retrocession. I’ll grant that they probably favor retrocession as a means to forestall the possibility of statehood.
The Democrats need to decide if they will accept the real world possibility of a compromise that will give the residents of Washington representation. Or are they holding out for two Democratic Senators who will probably never arrive. Republicans are clearly being partisan on this issue. Are the Democrats playing the same game?
If the reason DC will literally never be able to have statehood is that the Senate will be controlled by the white minority rule party for literally the rest of our lives, then there are a lot more problems than DC statehood and we should probably start talking about how to break the country up rather than how to expand it. (Anyways, I don’t think it’s that dire.)
Don’t worry, I’m pretty sceptical towards Democrats constantly bashing Republicans on race and then using it as a justification for trying to promote whatever policy of the day they’re chasing. Democrats don’t want DC statehood because of some racial injustice scenario. They want DC statehood because of the Congressional seats. The racial injustice argument is even weaker than the unfair representation argument.
Thanks. Just looked it up. The referendum was boycotted by the pro-status-quo side and had a turnout of 22.3%. So less than a quarter of the eligible voters in Puerto Rico voted for statehood. That’s a long way from a mandate.
And again, in my opinion, Puerto Rico has a much better case for statehood than DC.
We don’t know this yet. The Democrats might get a decent majority, for all we know. If so, statehood for DC (and PR and maybe Guam and the USVI) should absolutely be priorities.
Nemo, I want to emphasize that I am not trying to insult you. But your statement is so fundamentally, factually wrong, that it suggests you lack even the most cursory knowledge of the referendums. The 2012 referendum went nowhere precisely because it didn’t establish even a weak preference among voters. No view won more than a plurality. The results you give ignore that most citizens of PR chose specifically that they didn’t want any changes at that time.
The results were:
Status Quo: 46%
Change → Statehood: 33%
Change → Free Association: 18%
Change → Independence: 3%
OMB said it was unconstitutional because (among the other concerns cited by smilingbandit) the 23rd Amendment “contemplates a District of the proportions then in effect as a basis for the allocation of presidential electors”, and because the specific retrocession legislation proposed still allocates electoral college votes based on the popular vote within the remaining district.
This concern was pointed out upthread, and could theoretically be addressed with better retrocession legislation that changes how D.C.'s electoral votes are awarded.
I disagree with your interpretation. The 2012 referendum was asked as a two part question. The first part was whether people wanted a change. The second part was what change they preferred. Which was admittedly a convoluted pair of choices.
Here were the results:
Should Puerto Rico continue its current territorial status?
No - 54%
Yes - 46%
Which non-territorial option do you prefer?
Statehood - 61.2%
Free Association - 33.3%
Independence - 5.5%
You seem to have added the results of the two different questions together.
What I see is that a majority (54%) of people wanted a change. And of the changes proposed, a majority (61.2%) voted for statehood.
At the risk of going off on a tangent, I have said on several occasions that I feel the top priority that Democrats should work on if they win in November is establishing some fundamental voting reforms. If we do that, we will no longer have to worry about the problems of a minority party hijacking our country.
Little Nemo, You missed the fact that only people who voted for a situational change went for Statehood. It is a dependent fraction. My totals include all votes cast.
Or, to put it another way, you have simply wiped away all the votes you wished to ignore, and therefore ignored also the expressed wish of the plurality of voters. Therefore I say again, sir, you do not appear to understand what the referendum actually stated.
I think both would likely occur. When a new state comes in, in the next election it gets the number of representatives it would have had had it taken part in the latest census, so the number of representatives is temporarily increased, and then when the next apportionment occurs some states lose their representatives.
So for retrocession I think that would be easiest: temporarily give Maryland the extra number of representatives it would be due, and then wait for the next apportionment to bring the number back down again somewhere else.
I don’t think DC should get statehood. People choose to live there knowing it is not a state but more than the situation in Puerto Rico or Gram, they are living in a Federal district so they should have no expectation of becoming a state.
Rights should not be optional. The United States should not have “rights free” zones.
I’ll also point out a lot of residents probably didn’t make a choice to live in the District of Columbia. They live there because they were born there and grew up there. I don’t feel they should be bound by an agreement their ancestors made.