Whither Puerto Rico
William P. Baird
51st state or an independent nation is poised to move within the
next few weeks in the House with support from senior members
of both parties, including Democrat Nick J. Rahall II of West
Virginia and Republican Don Young of Alaska.
[...]
The House measure (HR 900) would allow Puerto Rico to hold a
vote during the 111th Congress on whether to end its territorial
status. A later vote would be held to determine statehood or
independence.
If it became a state, Puerto Rico's delegation would include two
senators and up to six House seats, based on its population.
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/04/16/cq_2561.html
Predictions? Anything changes at all?
Noel? Too busy to comment?
Carlos?
Will
--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Home: anzhalyu@gmail. has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Work: wba...@nersc.go is something big, mean, with very sharp
Blog: thedragonstales teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
+ com/v/.blogspot.com somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.
mra...@willamette.edu
> If it became a state, Puerto Rico's delegation would include two
> senators and up to six House seats, based on its population.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/04/16/cq_2561.html
>
> Predictions?
IIRC, the Pro-Statehood vote has gained ground in _every_ single
referendum Puerto Rico has had up to this point, and the last two
plebiscites were darn close.
1967
Commonwealth 60%
Statehood 39%
Independence 1%
1993: * Statehood.......... 788,296 (46.3%)
* Commonwealth....... 826,326 (48.6%)
* Independence........ 75,620 ( 4.4%)
* Nulls............... 10,748 ( 0.7%)
1998:
Statehood 728157 46.49%
Independence 39838 2.54%
None of the Above 787900 50.30%
And that last plebiscite had two other choices, which helped suck away
the Statehood vote, and "None of the Above" is an awfully big category
and vote-getter.
I think it'll all come down to how the plebiscite is worded. If
Puerto Ricans are given the option of
1.
A. Statehood.
B. Independence
Then it would be a landslide victory for Statehood. That's an
improbable ballot though. If it's
2.
A. Statehood,
B. Independence.
C. Commonwealth
Then I think it would be close, but I think Statehood would come out
on top. If it's like the 1998 plebiscite with lots of choices
including "None of the Above" then I think Statehood would go down to
defeat again, but narrowly, same as in 1998.
If it does become a State, the big changes will be a slight swing
towards the Democrats in the House and Electoral college and a
probable increase in debate about the place of English in America.
Internationally . . . I'm not sure. How will the rest of the world
look on the US taking in Puerto Rico as a state? Any reaction at all?
--
Mike Ralls
Michael G. Koerner
However, the discussions that I have read over the past couple of years are
saying that Congress will sponsor (and this is the first time that Congress
would hold the vote, ALL previous plebicites were sponsored by the
commonwealth) a 'two step' vote, first being:
'Maintain the current commonwealth status?'
Yes/Si_____
No_____
Should the yesses have it, the current status will be maintained for the
foreseeable future.
Should the 'nos' rule (and I expect that vote to be razor-close), then a few
months later, the next vote would be:
Statehood/Estado_____
Independence/Independencia_____
Statehood will win that vote in a 90-95% landslide.
Yes, it would add two seats to the USSenate and require that six seats either
be added or reapportioned in the USHouse, this in addition to the first change
in the flag since 1960.
It is impossible to tell how the party balance in their Congressional
representation will go, but seeing as their current non-voting delegate
(Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuño) is a Republican, it could get
interesting. Remember the common wisdom of the mid-late 1950s regarding
political party affiliations in Alaska and Hawaii, too. The vast majority of
Puerto Ricans are proud USAians, even more so than many citizens living in the
current 50, and they know full well what life is like in neighboring Haiti and
Cuba. Also, a more interesting point regarding language, someone commented in
a discussion that I read not long ago that Arizona was majority
Spanish-speaking when it was granted statehood. Unlike some people, I don't
really think that language will be a major long-term issue with PR and I do
see English gradually taking over there over a few generations.
An international question could be that should statehood work out, what, if
any, 'beacon' effect will it have on the people in the rest of Latin America
and the Caribbean region? Could post-Castro Cubans see that as a long-term
option and/or goal? Might this start giving some high-level Mexicans some
ideas? Etc?
----------------
An aside, The USA is currently in the longest period in its history without
the addition of a new state.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
William P. Baird
> I think it'll all come down to how the plebiscite is worded. If
> Puerto Ricans are given the option of
Round one (as I have read, but not the bill itself) is supposed to be
something to the effect of should the status of PR change wrt to
the USA? (Yes/No) Then round two (if the yes's win out, and I
suspect that they will), will have the question of state or
independence only. AFAIK, there's none of the none of the above
in either.
> If it does become a State, the big changes will be a slight swing
> towards the Democrats in the House and Electoral college and a
> probable increase in debate about the place of English in America.
Interestingly, Trent Lott (Hack, patooie) is trying to fight this one.
Probably for the reason that you state. However, do the PR political
parties map that well on to the two party system we use nationally?
> Internationally . . . I'm not sure. How will the rest of the world
> look on the US taking in Puerto Rico as a state? Any reaction at all?
Probably not much reaction. It's been a US territory for a long time.
Will
> Mike Ralls
mra...@willamette.edu
> However, the discussions that I have read over the past couple of years are
> saying that Congress will sponsor (and this is the first time that Congress
> would hold the vote, ALL previous plebicites were sponsored by the
> commonwealth) a 'two step' vote,
Ah, I did not know that. Hmm . . . yes that definitely changes the
dynamic of previous elections.
> Should the 'nos' rule (and I expect that vote to be razor-close),
Anyone have any recent polls out there?
> then a few
> months later, the next vote would be:
>
> Statehood/Estado_____
> Independence/Independencia_____
>
> Statehood will win that vote in a 90-95% landslide.
Agreed.
> interesting. Remember the common wisdom of the mid-late 1950s regarding
> political party affiliations in Alaska and Hawaii, too.
To be fair Alaska and Hawaii _both_ switching to the other sides over
the last 50 years was pretty contingent on the way the Republican and
Democrats changed their composition. PR could go either way over the
next 50 years, but so can the Reps and the Dems.
> Spanish-speaking when it was granted statehood. Unlike some people, I don't
> really think that language will be a major long-term issue with PR
Long term? No, I think 50%+ of PR's in 2076 will have English as _a_
first language, but in the short term, next 20 years say, having an
overwhelmingly Spanish-Speaking majority state will greatly raise the
topic of the place of English in America. Now, that could all just be
a tempest in a tea-pot with not much change to the status-quo, but in
the world of politics even that can have significant effects. See the
Republican gains from the issue of Gay Marriage; not much has changed
in practical terms for Gay Marriage over the last 6 years, but the
Republicans would probably have done worse in the last couple of
elections if it wasn't an issue in the first place.
> An international question could be that should statehood work out,
what, if
> any, 'beacon' effect will it have on the people in the rest of Latin America
> and the Caribbean region?
Very little, IMO. 1898 - 2011 is a _long_ time.
> Could post-Castro Cubans see that as a long-term
> option and/or goal?
No. Cubans, those who live in Cuba anyways, are very proud of being
Cuban and AFAICT don't have much desire to give up their national
identity. The dreams of exiles are just that, dreams.
> Might this start giving some high-level Mexicans some
> ideas? Etc?
Again, very little effect towards union, IMO (ideas that maybe "State
X" could have Spanish as an "official" language now are another
deal). The chief problem for the US to pull some type of EU for the
Americas is that while the EU could be painted as, none of us will
rule, any Union with the US would be seen by many as being conquered
by the US in a way that Denmark doesn't fear being conquered by
Portugal in the EU. And even in the EU there is a fair amount of
grumbling, more in the past than today, about how it was just a German
plot to do by trickery what they failed to do by force.
> An aside, The USA is currently in the longest period in its history without
> the addition of a new state.
Yep, we passed the record sometime back in '05, IIRC. Which means if
we pass a similar time after PR in say 2011, then we can expect the
52nd state in the 2060's. Guam might be big enough in size to want
state-hood by then.
--
Mike Ralls
William P. Baird
> An international question could be that should statehood work out, what, if
> any, 'beacon' effect will it have on the people in the rest of Latin America
> and the Caribbean region? Could post-Castro Cubans see that as a long-term
> option and/or goal? Might this start giving some high-level Mexicans some
> ideas? Etc?
I am sure that there will be some people that will think like that.
However,
to the majority of various countries and peoples in the Americas, I
doubt it'll
make anyone have second thoughts about joining as states...however
much
I'd like the contrary to be the case. Interestingly, the author of
the book [1]
I just read about the Insular Cases mumbled something a few times
about
Cuba and after Castro dies and all the Cubans in Florida, but it
sounded
more like wishful thinking.
Will
1. _The Insular Cases And the Emergence of American Empire_, Sparrow,
B,
2006, ISBN: 978-0700614820.
http://www.amazon.com/Insular-Emergence-American-Landmark-Society/dp/0700614826/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9322562-7387034?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176831241&sr=8-1
> Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
--
William P. Baird
> Long term? No, I think 50%+ of PR's in 2076 will have English as _a_
> first language, but in the short term, next 20 years say, having an
> overwhelmingly Spanish-Speaking majority state will greatly raise the
> topic of the place of English in America.
uh, Mike, NM has been a Spanish speaker majority state in the past.
I don't believe that sparked much of anything for the debate. PR
won't
spark this again either. If California - which is supposed to have a
39%
spanish speaking population - tips over to 50% more with its massive
population.
Will
PS Wanna spawn a US-as-EU thread seperately? Or continue here?
> Mike Ralls
mra...@willamette.edu
> uh,Mike, NM has been a Spanish speaker majority state in the past.
> I don't believe that sparked much of anything for the debate.
Oh come on. You don't think the public perception of Spanish-Speakers
as a significant factor in American life has changed dramatically
since 1912? The US was just not getting anywhere _near_ the
percentage of Spanish-speaking immigrants that it is today (although
it was going to increase dramatically as the Mexican revolution got
worse). Pre-WWI, most of the anti-Immigration talk was directed
against speakers of South and Eastern European languages, as that's
where the highest percentage of immigrants came from. Today, most of
it is directed against Spanish-speakers because that's where the
highest percentage of immigrants come from.
It changes the dynamic completely when it goes from "This new state is
keeping its old language which we really aren't getting very many new
speakers of" to "This new state is keeping its old language which we
are getting more speakers of than any other language."
Today many more Americans, justly or unjustly, fear the rise of
Spanish-Speaking immigrants in the US than was the case in 1912. I
don't see how admitting an overwhelmingly Spanish-Speaking state could
_not_ raise the level of political debate and worry over the rise of
Spanish in America.
I'm not saying anything other than political fall out will necessarily
happen because of that rise in debate, but yes I expect a significant
percentage of Americans to react with fear to a Spanish-speaking
state, and that one party (naming no names here) will seek to
capitalize on those fears.
Also, the % of Spanish speakers in NM in 1912 was not anywhere near as
high as what it is in PR today. IIRC the English-As-A-First-Language
vs. Spanish-As-A-First-Language was near 50-50 in NM in 1912. In PR
today it's what, 5%-95%? Again, different dynamic.
Come to think of it, are Spanish-Speakers today the highest % of
population that any non-English speakers have ever been in US
history?
> PR won't spark this again either.
I'm willing to put money on this. Say a decent bottle of wine? I'll
trust your honor and even let you decide what qualifies as "PR
Statehood Sparks Debate / Does not Spark Debate About Spanish In
America." With the loser paying up come the 2012 election, or the bet
being called off in 2013 if PR isn't a state by then.
SMS still hasn't paid me what he owes me for my last internet bet;
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/46ae9d975427d392?hl=en&
Grumble, grumble.
> PS Wanna spawn a US-as-EU thread seperately? Or continue here?
Probably best to spawn a separate thread. It's not like AHF is in
danger of too many threads.
--
Mike Ralls
mra...@willamette.edu
> Probably for the reason that you state. However, do the PR political
> parties map that well on to the two party system we use nationally?
Based on a cursorary read, I don't think they map very well, and
certainly not 1-1. The three big parties are;
Puerto Rican Independence Party, the New Progressive Party, and the
Popular Democratic Party.
I expect PIP to become a fringe group that dies a slow death in the
winner-take all Congressional and Senatorial elections the state of PR
would have, but NPP and PDP are likely to gain a national seat or two
in the first elections. However, the benefits to becoming either a
Republican or a Democrat would be quite large for any PR Congressor or
Senator, so I think they would fall in one group or the other over the
next decade, especially because Statehood would remove the major issue
between the NPP and PDP. Who goes where would be pretty contingent
depending upon which leading NPP and PDP politicians win, but I think
it would be a net gain for the Democrats because of social issues.
--
Mike Ralls
William P. Baird
> I'm willing to put money on this. Say a decent bottle of wine? I'll
> trust your honor and even let you decide what qualifies as "PR
> Statehood Sparks Debate / Does not Spark Debate About Spanish In
> America." With the loser paying up come the 2012 election, or the bet
> being called off in 2013 if PR isn't a state by then.
Bet accepted. I'll see if I can turn up a suitable Ukrainian wine
for
ya assuming that you're interested. I semi concede on the other
points,
btw. Just a tad short on time.
Will
mra...@willamette.edu
> Bet accepted. I'll see if I can turn up a suitable Ukrainian wine
> for ya assuming that you're interested.
Sounds interesting. I've never had Ukrainian wine, so I'm curious.
I'll see if I can turn up a nice Willamette Pinot Noir, we're pretty
famous for them.
Cheers,
Mike
Starving Grad Stud
> On Apr 16, 4:16 pm, mra...@willamette.edu wrote:
>
> > I think it'll all come down to how the plebiscite is worded. If
> > Puerto Ricans are given the option of
>
> Round one (as I have read, but not the bill itself) is supposed to be
> something to the effect of should the status of PR change wrt to
> the USA? (Yes/No) Then round two (if the yes's win out, and I
> suspect that they will), will have the question of state or
> independence only. AFAIK, there's none of the none of the above
> in either.
>
> > If it does become a State, the big changes will be a slight swing
> > towards the Democrats in the House and Electoral college and a
> > probable increase in debate about the place of English in America.
The effect in the House would probably be 4 new Blue Dog Democrats and
2 Republicans. Some elements of both parties could depend on reliable
votes. Socially conservative Republicans would net gain 4-6 yeas on
most issues. Democrats would net gain 2 yeas on everything else.
> Interestingly, Trent Lott (Hack, patooie) is trying to fight this one.
> Probably for the reason that you state. However, do the PR political
> parties map that well on to the two party system we use nationally?
I think it has more to do with the increase in transfers that would go
to a Puerto Rico that votes as opposed to one that doesn't.
William P. Baird
<starvingecongrads...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think it has more to do with the increase in transfers that would go
> to a Puerto Rico that votes as opposed to one that doesn't.
Possibly. Unfortunately, I have a hard time seeing past the fact this
is, well, Trent Lott. He tarred himself with some nasty stuff not too
long ago and I don't think I can view much of what he does wrt to
people that are different from his "kind" without being a little
suspicious.
That's just me though.
Query, how would the transfers go up?
Will