That is the question I asked. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?
Was gonna post a link but never mind as well!
The reason that Californians (or as WE pointed out to an even greater degree, New Yorkers) should “pay the bills” in Kentucky or Texas or Puerto Rico is the same as the reason that the rich within those states should pay more taxes than the poor while receiving fewer benefits.
Taxes and benefits are necessary for a functioning society that benefits all of its members, not just the elites. In the long term, Californians and New Yorkers are not better off if Kentucky’s roads fall into disrepair, its children become uneducated, and so on.
However if it were considered two separate elections, yes it did
First election - we want a change wins
Second election - we want statehood wins
I took the conversation over here instead. Also I was somewhat wrong.
You can’t consider it as two separate polls. That was one of the complaints from the election, and why many voters refused to answer the second question.
46% of the 2012 referendum voters supported the status quo. So 54% preferred a different option, but that different option wasn’t specified. When asked about that different option, and ignoring the non-voters, 61% chose statehood. If 88.5% of those who preferred the non-status quo voted and preferred statehood, then there would be a claim to a majority. However, it wasn’t a preference vote, and while there are no official statistics, 88.5% of the non-status quo voters favouring statehood is an unreasonably high speculative amount to predict for those who voted for statehood. Additionally, only 71.7% of the voters who answered the first question answered the second question. So even if 100% of the voters who voted against the status quo voted for statehood, that still doesn’t make up a majority of voters for statehood versus the status quo of voters who answered either question. (Admittedly, I’m not doing the math for voters who answered the second question, but not the first.)
I think we can all agree the structure of that referendum was a ridiculous mess, and as has been pointed out, it’s hard to trust the result of any referendum that has no legal consequence.
Except there’s ample precedent for the idea that major changes to constitutional structures require super-majorities.
For example, it took positive resolutions from 9 of the 13 states to bring the US Constitution into force. A simple majority (7 of 13) was not enough:
And super-maoirites are needed for constitutional amendments: 2/3 vote in each chamber, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the states:
So saying “democracy / 50%+1” isn’t a sufficient answer to arguments that there needs to be some sort of super-majority for a vote by Puerto Ricans to change their current constitutional position.
Has a supermajority ever been required to admit a new state into the Union? Were referenda even required before Alaska and Hawai’i?
I’m not being snarky here, but given the current political climate are we counting the 60 vote minimum for Senate votes for future votes?
Never formally required de jure, at least as far as I can see in post-Civil War admissions – as mentioned, historically in the case of the last few states by the time the binding ballot question was presented it was a foregone conclusion and you had de facto supermajorities. But the admission acts themselves made no mention of extraordinary thresholds.
Most of the post-Civil War states did have referenda at some point in the process, even multiple ones, the final one sometimes coeval with ratification of the proposed state constitution, but as to how you got there it was all over the place whether this was done at the start or at the end, of their own initiative or mandated by Congress and if the latter under an Enabling Act or the actual Admission Act, or if the state constitutional convention was called before or after Congress legislated about it, or you did the “Tennesee Plan” maneuver of just unilaterally constituting a whole state government complete with a Senate and House delegation and saying “well, what ya gonna do about this?”
Before the CW as far as I can tell it was mostly a thing between the territorial legislature or constitutional convention (or national congress, if you were Texas) and Congress and the vote would be to elect the legislators or delegates who’d in turn vote for statehood.
Oh right, this is another bit to understand: Admission of a state, per the Constitution, is an Act of Congress and there is no special condition in the text so it would be subject to regular order. So yes, passage would need the assent of enough sitting Senators to let a floor vote happen.
I find it interesting that posters have taken my super-majority comment about whether it’s needed to join the union. I was meaning it at the earlier stage: is it fair for Puerto Ricans to be told that the margin for a huge change to their current situation is 50%+1 ? Maybe a super-majority should be required for Puerto Rico to decide which way it wants to go? If that choice were ultimately for statehood, a super-majority wouldn’t be needed for that final stage.
Major changes to a constitutional position, one that is likely irreversible, often need a super/majority. See: adoption of the US Constitution. I think it’s too simplistic to adopt a 50% + 1 standard.
Or, instead of a super-majority, when you have three options (status quo; independence; statehood), you can do the votes in stages, with two referenda, to clarify the options.
For example, in 1948, Newfoundland, at that time a separate but bankrupt British Dominion, was considering its future after WWII. There were three options, very similar to the situation Puerto Rico is in now: full independence; remain under British governance; or join Canada.
Newfoundland sent delegations to the UK and to Canada. The results from the UK were not promising, as the UK was financially strapped from WWII and was not prepared to provide subsidies to Newfoundland. The Canadian made an offer of more generous financial terms.
Those three options were put to the people of Newfoundland in a referendum in June 1948. None gained a majority, but remain under British governance came in third, with only 14%. Independence came in first, at 44%, and Confederation with Canada second, at 41%.
So the option of remain with Britain was dropped from the ballot and a second, binding, referendum was held a month later, with just independence or Confederation on the ballot.
On that one, Confederation came first, with 52%, beating independence, which came in at 48%.
Canada and Newfoundland then worked out the terms in detail, and Newfoundland joined Confederation.
That final vote wasn’t a super-majority, but the process followed ensured that the people got a chance to vote on all three options and make the final decision.
I could see a similar process being used for Puerto Rico, but letting the people themselves decide if they want status quo.
Not 50%+1 but rather a majority. Think if there were 15 people in PR, it wouldn’t take 8.5 or more votes, just 8.
OK, pedantry aside, let’s say they need 60% of the vote to change their status. Is it fair that just a hair over 40% can decide for the rest that PR does not become a state? If not a majority then what standard is good enough?
Was it fair that 30% of the states got to decide if the US Constitution came into force?
4 out 13 could have blocked it.
Evidently the drafters thought that was a fair requirement for a major change to their form of government.
The U.S. should not be bound by such concerns, Puerto Rico needs to have an in or out referendum and whatever the result, if it isn’t in, they need to be out. If Puerto Rico wants to make “in” require a supermajority that is on them, but we should still force them out if “in” doesn’t carry.
And what does that have to do with this discussion on majority voting in the US?
Or are you saying that EVERY vote in the US needs a 70% vote because of the unique way the Constitution came into effect?
Why should we “force them out” and change their status with zero input from them? Seems impolite at best and downright criminal at worst.
Got it. Agree the US is in a bad spot w PR now. Caused by some combo of long-ago imperial machinations, historical accident and political inertia. We’d certainly never choose to create the current situation today.
As a friend of mine used to say: “Never open a can of worms unless you’re prepared to eat all the worms.”
The status quo is not cost-free to any of the involved parties. Neither are any of the alternatives. And most significantly, any transition will be very much not cost-free even if it later results in reduced costs as things slide to the desired new reality.
And by “costs”, I don’t just mean dollars. There’s political tension, political bandwidth and political capital spent here that can’t be spent elsewhere, family disruption, cultural disruption, etc.
I would like PR to choose in or out and end at least some of this accident of history. But I don’t think they should be forced to choose at the gunpoint of us telling them: “… or we’ll choose for you.” Which is exactly what an ultimatum about the schedule amounts to.
The US could take the passive aggressive stance of unilaterally altering the terms of various subsidies, tax laws, etc., to make the current situation ever more painful to the PR people, intending to entice them to make a move. Arguably we’ve already done so over the last 30-ish years. But that’s a pretty transparent fig leaf we’re wearing.
I think the framers intended that any major/irreversible changes should require clear super-majorities to do so. Constitutional amendments, foreign treaties, impeachment, & presidential disability all require super-majorities.
There is an inherent bias towards the status quo for these things. Sure, it isn’t fair that a 33% minority can drag their feet and dictate terms, but it also isn’t fair that a 50%+1 majority of impulsive hotheads can potentially make changes that can screw things up well past the point of long-term recovery.
Even normal acts of congress require supermajorities between the president, house, and senate - either you’re going to need 3/3 be in agreement or supermajorities within both parts of congress to override a veto.
While statehood admission requires just a regular act of congress (unless it is the result of splitting combining existing states, in which you need each affected state’s legislature to agree as well), I think this was an oversight, as once a state is in, it’s pretty much permanent.