The General US Politics Thread

Agreed. Unless you're denied the right to vote, you forfeit all right to whine when you forfeit your vote.

@Marq, Trump is amazingly good at getting his chosen toads to win primaries. General elections (where it isn't just the GOP base in play) may well be a different story. But yes, his control over the Republican party is total at this point.

1. Not an election, a non-binding referendum.

2. The referendum was drafted by the pro-statehood PNP and used language that their opposition disputes.

This means that participating in the referendum for the pro-independence, pro-status quo and pro-free association sides requires their acquiescing to the pro-statehood side's language. Since the referendum is non-binding, that means that even if they won (which, yes, informal polls suggest is unlikely), there was no guarantee that what they wanted would get done, but every guarantee that the pro-statehood side now had a solid case for forcing their opposition to use their terminology, since the majority of the nation voted in a referendum using that language and therefore implicitly supported that language.

Let me give a more broad, not Puerto Rico specific example of why this is bad...

Let's say there was a public, non-binding referendum in the entire US which asked the following question:

Even if 100% of the population the US votes in this referendum and 99% votes 'Yes', it's non-binding, so the government doesn't have to do anything with those results, but everyone who voted in it just acquiesced to the assertion that Donald J. Trump is the legitimate President of the US, that he won the popular vote and that the Russians didn't help him into power. The Trump government now has a legitimate claim that the majority of the population supports those assertions. After all... If they didn't, they would have objected to the phrasing and not voted because that's the standard and not at all unusual or uncommon.

Edited by Robrecht on Aug 9th 2018 at 4:24:26 AM

I hope the Democratic Party disagrees with you when they are back in power.

... you want them to enforce statehood upon a territory because a minority within that territory (less than one quarter) has asked for it? That's... bad.

Seriously, if you hold a referendum, and 3/4 of your electorate doesn't turn up to vote, you're on incredibly shaky ground to say "the boycotts don't matter!" when the referendum was already phrased in a way that dictates terms. It's a farce to claim there's some sort of electoral mandate when your referendum has a 35% difference in turnout compared to the prior general election.

Maybe next time they try to vote on this they out to have a non partisan committee write out the resolution. But I'm far from sure what the political situation is in Puerto Rico, with the parties regarding their opinions on statehood.

When has boycotting a vote ever worked? Seriously, is it actually effective? More so than voting “No” would be?

In this case it was, because the "statehood" option was expecting to win. Not voting calls into question the legitimacy of the whole thing in a way voting against but losing doesn't.

Given the USA’s rather low overall voter turnout and voter registration in actual elections, I just think it’s a bad precedent to claim vote results are invalid if turnout is too low.

Edited by M84 on Aug 9th 2018 at 7:43:17 PM

If turnout on a referendum to alter the whole constitutional arrangement of a place is less than half that of the preceding general election vote, there is indeed such a thing as too little turnout. Normally such referenda would be expected to boost turnout, not cripple it.

Then again, low voter turnout is tied to a lot of pervasive low-level voter suppression.

Elections are on Tuesdays, and in most states the polls are open from 6 AM to 6 PM, a.k.a. the middle of work hours for most people. Most states also close voter registration a month or more in advance, so if you forget to update your registration on time, you can’t vote. Purges of voter rolls have also been getting out of hand, particularly in states which used to be covered by the voting rights act because of prior issues with the suppressing minority voters.

Now, you might argue that if voting being “inconvenient” stopped you from voting, well, then you don’t care enough and so you’ve given up your right to care about the results.

I personally disagree. Voting is a fundamental right, and it should be as easy as possible. Elections should be on weekends, polls should be open for at least a 20 hour period, to account for people with weird work schedules, voter registration should be open until immediately before the election, and states should be required to publicize getting registered and getting informed about candidates.

If I had my way, every state would do mail in ballots like a couple of the Pacific Northwest states do. You get your ballot in the mail, you get time to research the candidates, and then you send your ballot back in. They have some of the highest voter participation the country, and no issues with voter fraud.

Edited by wisewillow on Aug 9th 2018 at 7:50:35 AM

It's a hotly contested issue for a reason. There are still a lot of people in Puerto Rico who don't really want to be a state, or even apart of the U.S. they just understand that Puerto Rico wouldn't make it as an independent country.

Which is one of the reasons why the current status is still in place.

On one hand, statehood would give them a lot more power and access to aid. On the other hand it would effectively destroy any plan for independence.

Sessions and his subordinates deported an asylum seeker while her court case was being heard, and now the judge in question is considering holding them in contempt.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/politics/judge-halts-deportations-sessions/index.html

I think Puerto Rico should have been a state a long time ago but that's ultimately a plan of the people. The fact it IS part of the USA and has been treated to essentially complete apathy is a shame of America.

I'm not a fan of Scott Adams but a Dilbert comic raised a decent rebuttal to this. Dogbert saying something akin to, "What if the candidates were both terrible?"

Which is basically the reason for much voter apathy.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Aug 9th 2018 at 5:23:07 AM

I don't think that really negates the point. If you actively choose not to vote, you lose the right to complain about the result.

If both candidates are terrible, vote for the less terrible one, or the terrible one that at least pays lip-service to your desires, since they can be held to account if/when they don't deliver.

Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 9th 2018 at 6:31:37 AM

I don't agree. You have a right to demand a better candidate than give your support to one who would say.

Candidate 1#: Deport all immigrants Candidate 2#: Go to war with Kurdistan

I do vote every election but I consider not voting a form of protest.

I mean, yes, some people think "both sides are awful/are the same" is a valid viewpoint, and a valid reason not to vote. Some people also think the Earth is flat.

You can believe whatever you want, it just comes with the caveat that if you don't help with the process (when you have the ability to), you don't get to whine about the result.

^Your non-vote carries exactly the same weight as the non-vote of Sandy College who forgot it was Election Day and spent the whole day putting together an IKEA shelf wrong, and means exactly as much to either candidate.

Edited by RedSavant on Aug 9th 2018 at 8:35:22 AM

Let me throw my own then, "If you don't provide a decent candidate, you have no reason to complain about low voter turnout."

A concerted organisation of non-voting to the point of giving a completely lopsided vote does do its job of casting doubt on the entire validity of the vote in the first place, particularly when such a vote is nonbinding.

I can't believe that this has gotten so far as equating an organised boycott of a nonbinding referendum with people refusing to back a candidate.

The only thing you protest when you choose not to vote is your own ability to influence public policy.

The positive thing is, that the threat of Contempt was at least enough to force Session and Kirsten to bring her (and her daughter) immediately home (IE, The USA).

I hope this Judge does hold them in Contempt, and unlike Kobach, I hope the Judge puts them behind bars. Even if it's only for a day or two, it'll teach this administration a lesson; you can't violate the law to fit your agenda, especially when it comes to people's lives.

Speaking of Kobach, his 191 lead got shortened to just 91 after voting errors were discovered in the primaries.

No I want to enforce statehood upon a territory because a referendum overwhelmingly passed, the fact that a good chunk of the population did not vote is of no concern to me. Such is the consequences when you refuse to vote (and no I don't view their reason as anything other than cowardly pretext).

If this was truly opposed by a majority of the population then they would've voted, the fact they did not simply demonstrated their acceptance of either result.

Well said.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 9th 2018 at 9:02:19 AM

Here's a good article about possible Puerto Rico statehood. It's from last year, but I do think it gives a good overview of the basic issues and political landscapes, and what would actually have to happen for statehood to be feasible.

Edited by megaeliz on Aug 9th 2018 at 9:10:29 AM