Jump to content

Talk:2012 Puerto Rican status referendum: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}, {{WikiProject Puerto Rico}}. Keep 2 different ratings in {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WikiProject United States}}.
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ITN talk|7 November|2012}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
{{WikiProjectBanners|banner collapsed=no|1=
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Puerto Rico|class=C|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Puerto Rico|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{Archives}}
{{ITN talk|7 November|2012}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30}}
{{archive box|search=yes|
{{nowrap|'''2012''': {{Archives by months|2012}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2013''': {{Archives by months|2013}}}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = Talk:Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
| minthreadsleft = 3
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}
==Untitled==
Blank votes are valid votes. Only those that are invalid votes are not valid. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.21.81.115|95.21.81.115]] ([[User talk:95.21.81.115|talk]]) 01:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Can you give us any evidence for that? As far as I can see, blank votes are not properly counted as actual votes, and I have not seen any evidence that those blank votes are meant to carry a message other than those who have voted Yes in the first question. [[User:Raistuumum|Raistuumum]] ([[User talk:Raistuumum|talk]]) 01:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there is a group of votes that is called invalid votes to which blank votes don't belong, draw your own conclusions. You can also read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_vote
and you can also check the officcial results of the puerto rican referendum. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.77.210.54|188.77.210.54]] ([[User talk:188.77.210.54|talk]]) 16:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Accuracy lovers, you got the labells of the table wrong again: blank votes are valid votes, act accordingly please. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.21.94.149|95.21.94.149]] ([[User talk:95.21.94.149|talk]]) 12:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Copyright problem removed ==

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://jurist.org/hotline/2012/02/pedro-pierluisi-referendum.php. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, ''unless'' it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see [[Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others|"using copyrighted works from others"]] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or [[Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials|"donating copyrighted materials"]] if you are.) For [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|legal reasons]], we cannot accept [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyrighted]] text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences'' or ''phrases''. Accordingly, the material ''may'' be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original ''or'' [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism|plagiarize]] from that source. Please see our [[Wikipedia:NFC#Text|guideline on non-free text]] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> '''[[User:Brandon5485|<span style="color:#1FFFFF">Brandon</span>]][[User talk:Brandon5485|<span style="color:#FF9999">5485</span>]]''' 01:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

== Polls? ==

Any information on the current polling results from the referendum? Is the referendum expected to succeed? Anything that talks about its current status in public opinion would be a helpful addition to the article. [[User:Zaldax|Zaldax]] ([[User talk:Zaldax|talk]]) 17:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

:I was thinking the same thing. Anything out there? --[[User:Lionheart Omega|Lionheart Omega]] ([[User talk:Lionheart Omega|talk]]) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

::I was curious about it as well, as a newspaper article gave me the impression a vote was held on August 12th. However, [[Political status of Puerto Rico#2012 plebiscite]] states that the plan was to have two polls, one about whether or not to change the status (August 2012), and one for what the now status should be (November 2012), but that they are merged into a single referendum to be held in November 2012.
::Buut, you guys probably mean gallup polls when I think about it, and yeah, that would be interesting to see. [[User:Jon Harald Søby|Jon Harald Søby]] ([[User talk:Jon Harald Søby|talk]]) 00:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


There are two newspapers publishing polls, but both only do so in their printed version so that people buy it. The first to publish them was [[El Nuevo Dia]], which is genrally considered to lean towards the PPD:

*The first poll (march) had: Independence 3%, ELA Soberano (what has been described as "free association with double citizenship" by PPD members) 42%, Statehood 32% 
*The second (may) had: Independence 5%, ELA Soberano 45%, Statehood 36% 
*The third (august) had: Independence 5%, ELA Soberano 43%, Statehood 37%
*The remaining percent is either not voting or unsure which option they prefer.

The other newspaper is [[El Vocero]], which is generally regarded to lean towards the PNP:
*They published the first sometime around March, which gave a 4% advantage to Statehood over the ELA Soberano, but I can't say what the percents were because they changed servers and all of the analisis were wiped.
*The second had a tie between Statehood and ELA Soberano at 39%.
**In neither case El Vocero discussed independence in its analisis.

[[User:Old School WWC Fan|Old School WWC Fan]] ([[User talk:Old School WWC Fan|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 05:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:So, in other words, this is going to be a horse race. Cause, what I get out of this is the fact Puerto Rico is anywhere near decided on way or another. Seriously, what are the chances of a definitive result? --[[User:Lionheart Omega|Lionheart Omega]] ([[User talk:Lionheart Omega|talk]]) 19:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
::In this referendum? I would say 10% or less, none of the options is likely to get anything over 52-53%. The only logical chance for a "definitive" result would be that all of the center-left wing parties formed some sort of alliance to support free association and make it something along the lines of "Statehood: Yes or No", given that the PNP is regarded as a common enemy. [[User:Old School WWC Fan|Old School WWC Fan]] ([[User talk:Old School WWC Fan|talk]]) 01:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

== Electoral method? ==

It's not entirely clear from the article how the two-stage, single-election plebiscite will work. If the "change the status quo" option fails to get a majority, is there an instant runoff/AV/STV resolution of the second question? First past the post? Including or excluding status quo from the second round? This sounds like it could produce some very odd results if preferences between several options are roughly evenly split, depending on the exact procedure used. [[Special:Contributions/84.203.33.210|84.203.33.210]] ([[User talk:84.203.33.210|talk]]) 10:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:Both are tallied separately, the first supposed to judge if PR will change its territorrial status ''in January 2013'', the second, which they prefer among the non-territorial options.

*The PNP has said that if they territory wins, they will continue to make these polls every two years regardless of who wins in the United States.
*The PPD has claimed that regardless if the territory wins or no, they are waiting one year (if Obama is reelected) for the White House to act as recommended in the task force's paper and will otherwise organize a constituent assembly in 2014. The MUS and PIP also support a constituent assembly.
*No idea what will happen if the PPD and Republican parties win...

[[User:Old School WWC Fan|Old School WWC Fan]] ([[User talk:Old School WWC Fan|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 05:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:It's a non-binding vote. Meaning it doesn't really matter what happens. The US Congress has the power to make Puerto Rico Independent if 100% are against it, or make it a state if 100% of the people are against it, or do nothing.[[Special:Contributions/68.81.112.197|68.81.112.197]] ([[User talk:68.81.112.197|talk]]) 19:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

== Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service CRS Report ==


== Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service CRS Report ==


[[Congressional Research Service]] Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report
[[Congressional Research Service]] Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report
Line 81: Line 15:
[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42765.pdf Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions]
[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42765.pdf Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions]


== Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President - Official Results of the Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress Inform the Congress ==
== Adding results before vote counting is finished ==


[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0OdMdvVGyuHOC03cEVlR0xnOFU/edit?pli=1 Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President - Official Results of the 2012 Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite]
Maybe adding in the results should wait until the vote count is complete? [http://www.ceepur.org/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#en/default/CONDICION_POLITICA_TERRITORIAL_ACTUAL_ISLA.xml The official (I think) results page] says: "REPORTED POLLING STATIONS: 1389 OF 1643 FOR 84.36%"... --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 07:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:Really shouldn't. I've just fooled by that. I thought the election was over when I see the word "resulted". Then I went to the official page, it says it's still going on. --[[User:Wiki637|<span style="color: #007881;">'''Wiki637'''</span>]]※[[User talk:Wiki637|<span style="color: #EB9800;">'''Talk'''</span>]] 09:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgF_55iZc Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress oficially informing the results of the 2012 Plebiscite]
==Undue weight==
Is it me, or are the criticism being given undue weight without any representation from those who disagreed? This presents a serious NPOV issue with the article as it stands. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis</b> <b>Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] <small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small> 00:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:It seems like the section wouldn't be undue if the rest of the article was as developed as it should be, but it is currently far too large a section compared to the rest of the article.&nbsp;[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] 03:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


==Results==
== Current template ==
Some editors have changed the results to show the blank ballots counted within the percentage for the second option. This is not how referendum results should be presented - percentages should only be calculated based on the valid votes - this is how reliable psephologist sources present such information.


The official results from CEEPUR use this correct format - see [http://64.185.222.182/REYDI_Escrutinio12/index.html#es/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml their website]. This is repeated by reliable sources such as the [http://www.sudd.ch/event.php?lang=en&id=pr042012 Direct Democracy], the best source around for referendums. The [http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42765.pdf Congressional Research Service] specifically states that "The certified results list 498,604 “blank votes,” but do not include them when calculating percentages listed in the final results."). [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 10:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel that the information about this is not changing rapidly as the template suggests. The documentation page says it applies when 100's of editors are editing on the same day. It is meant to apply to breaking news. In this case, the event is finished and while more information will come about, there won't be an amount that necessitates the template.&nbsp;[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] 03:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:I guess. I just feel that 100s of editors editing is not relevant to whether or not an event is a current event. If we go by that standard then [[:Category:Current events]] should be cleaned up. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 03:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
*PS, I noticed the reference to [[Crimean status referendum, 2014]] in the edit summary. This article is also wrong, but I note that it is the target of some serious nationalist edit wars, so I was going to wait until the fuss had died down to correct it. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 10:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::I notice that some articles in that category seem to have been added manually. I would have no problem with adding this article to the category (I am unaware of anything that says we can't at least). {{t|Current}} is meant as a warning to readers so they understand that the article will be changing rapidly. Since that is not the case, the template shouldn't be there, even though it is a current event.&nbsp;[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] 03:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Alright, that's acceptable to me. Maybe it would be a good idea to rework the {{tlp|recent event}} template to denotes current event articles that are not expected to change as rapidly. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 03:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


::Please provide us a policy that states that, "This is not how referendum results should be presented - percentages should only be calculated based on the valid votes." Anyone can swing a referendum to favor a desired outcome by fooling outsiders. 25% of voters left the ballot in blank in protest. There was no "[[none of the above]]" option; this shows you how the outcome was premeditated. It was not a mere 1% that left the ballots blank. Twenty six motherfucking percent did. That's ''extraordinary''. CEEPUR must follow the local law but in Wikipedia we adhere to [[WP:NPOV]] and it's obvious that if we follow the letter of the law in this case rather than the interpretation of the law, we would be pushing a biased agenda favoring statehood.
== original research for understanding, not for article ==
::Let me give you an example: if I were to ask people, "Do you want to die?" Most people would answer, "No." But if in a second question I asked, "If you were to live forever how you would prefer to live: sick for the rest of your life, dismembered, deaf, or blind in one eye?" Most people would choose, "blind in one eye" but is this really a fair question? Where is the option for, "jesus I don't want to live forever in any of those conditions!" Since there's no such option on the ballot some people would leave the ballot blank in protest for the lack of "none of the above".
:: Here are several sources that explain this phenomena:
{{quotation |''[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gonzalez-puerto-rico-complex-statehood-vote-article-1.1201608 New York Daily News]'':


And the results were: 809,000 votes for statehood, only 73,000 for independence, and 441,000 for sovereign free association.
Inclusion of original research in Wikipedia articles is prohibited. However, use of original research to understand the subject better then to write a better article is permitted and can be a good idea. With that disclaimer, I offer the following idea.


So a majority wants Puerto Rico to be the 51st state, right?
Those who use the referendum to support statehood may be using flawed logic.


'''Not exactly. More than <u>470,000 people cast blank ballots in protest of the second part of the referendum</u>''', following a recommendation from the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party.
The first referendum question is whether to stay the same or not. 54% say not, 46% want continued commonwealth status.


So <u>statehood did not actually receive 61% of the vote</u> — until you ignore the nearly half a million people who cast blank ballots. If you factor in that protest vote, statehood garnered 45%, a result that’s virtually unchanged from previous referendums in 1993 and 1998.}}
The second referendum question results of statehood is 61%. However, 46% want no change as was determined by the first referendum.


{{quotation|[http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-11-07/puerto-ricans-opt-for-statehood-in-referendum Associated Press]:
Hypothetically, it could be:
46% want commonwealth status, the current situation (this is not hypothetical but a true result)</br>
33% want statehood</br>16% want sovereign free association state,</br>and 4% want independence.


But Tuesday's vote comes with an asterisk and an imposing political reality: The island remains bitterly divided over its relationship to the United States and many question the validity of this week's referendum.
If that is the case, then those who say that the will of the people is statehood could be proposing a false idea. In the numbers above, the most popular choice is commonwealth.


<u>Nearly a half million voters chose to leave a portion of the ballot blank.</u>}}
Now, perhaps reliable sources could be used to see if my idea is not a new idea. It would boggle the mind if I am the first to think of this. I really doubt that I am the first. [[User:Auchansa|Auchansa]] ([[User talk:Auchansa|talk]]) 05:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


{{quotation|[http://www.referendum.ed.ac.uk/the-plebiscite-on-puerto-ricos-constitutional-status-determining-puerto-ricos-future/ University of Edinburgh]:
::Without looking very hard, I found a citation:
said Luis Agrait, a history professor at the University of Puerto Rico.
Secondly, a large number of ballots -- one-third of all votes cast -- were left blank on the question of preferred alternative status. If you assume those blank votes are anti-statehood votes, the true result for the statehood option would be less than 50%, Agrait argues.


Among the choices offered by the second question, federalism received 61%, sovereign ELA 33.3%, and independence 5.5%, <u>but there were 480,918 blank votes, so if those votes were to be counted, '''federalism received only 46% of the vote'''</u>.}}
From: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html
This quote doesn't exactly cover my point, though.
[[User:Auchansa|Auchansa]] ([[User talk:Auchansa|talk]]) 05:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


{{quotation|[http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/01/puerto-rico-leaders-speak-in-u-s-senate-on-referendum-islands-political-future/ NBC]:
:::What if there were a referendum:
Question 1: Do you want spinach for dinner? Yes 30%, No 70%.


Voters were asked two questions: the first asked if people favored the current status as a commonwealth or not, and the second listed the alternatives. The status options included becoming a state, and total independence. <u>'''The White House, however, said the vote was unclear''' because 466,000 people did not specify a preference on an alternative status</u>, primarily because the current commonwealth option was left out.}}
Question 2: If you are forced to not have spinach, do you want poop, cyanide, or urine?
Urine 70%, Poop 16%, Cyanide 14%.


{{quotation|[http://nbclatino.com/2012/12/03/white-house-puerto-rico-status-position-not-clear-from-plebiscite/ NBC]:
Conclusion: People prefer urine!


White House spokesperson Jay Carney was asked today whether President Barack Obama intends to support a push for Puerto Rican statehood following plebiscite results in the island. Carney explained that <u>the administration did '''not''' feel the plebiscite’s results were clear</u>.
No!!!!! People actually prefer spinach if given that choice.


“This administration, as you know, is committed to the principle that the question of political status is a matter of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico,” said Carney. He explained the results show Puerto Ricans do want a resolution to the status issue — about 54 percent of Puerto Ricans voted for a status change — but “I think {{underline|the outcome was a little less clear than that '''because of the process itself'''}},” Carney said.}}
[[User:Auchansa|Auchansa]] ([[User talk:Auchansa|talk]]) 05:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


:: As we must adhere to NPOV, we must present the facts "as is" and leave them to interpretation to our own readers. We just say: "hey statehood got these many numbers, independence these many, and blank or invalid got these many." That's it. Saying that statehood got 61% is equivocal and pushes an agenda. Laws are laws. When laws are unfair people protest against them. That's what they did. The party in power found a flaw and ran a referendum to favor their agenda. Puerto Ricans didn't have any tool against it except leaving the ballot blank ''intentionally'' to show the whole world that a significant minority of Puerto Ricans didn't consider the ballot fair.
:(Auchansa, please try to stay calm and remain civil. Thanks.)
:Well, none of the following OR can be used in the article, but to explain a few things:
:The referendum was asking about more than two choices, all of which were mutually exclusive, a decision which is [[Arrow's theorem|mathematically impossible]] to decide fairly. People's preferences are complicated, allowing it to be that ''all'' options are [[Voting paradox|directly going against the majority]] when pitted against some other option. This particular referendum "bundles" together three options, pitting them against one option (current status), and then counts a run-off between the remaining three options. It's certainly a sub-optimal method of decision-making, (for optimal you'd need to use an advanced Condorcet method like the [[Schulze method]] or [[Tideman method]],) but it's no more incorrect than using the results of a run-off of switched-around options. Supposing that there was a referendum asking "Should Puerto Rico become a state of the USA?" and then "Which non-statehood option do you prefer?", then you would similiarly be likely to get a result that isn't supported by a majority against another particular option, and be in the exact same situation. It's impossible to fairly isolate any two options to decide between, and adding in the third option (even if it wouldn't win in any case) can flip the results straight backward, regardless of what vote system is used. (See [[Independence of irrelevant alternatives]].) So, to answer, it is perfectly possible that the statehood result would be less-preferred than one specific potential alternative (in this case most likely the current status), but that doesn't actually mean it's not correct to use it as an indicator that the people support statehood. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 05:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


:: A vote is a deliberate act towards a desired outcome. 25% of voters deliberately wanted to show to the world that they didn't agree with the options given on the second question. They casted a vote by leaving the ballot blank intentionally.
:::Of course, I am polite and nice. I always am. I was afraid nobody would respond. With your comment, we know there is a problem. Now we can look for citations. There are citations about why there are problems with the referendum. I do not know much about PR and prefer that somebody else take the lead. I merely thought of the idea. I read CNN (or was it somewhere else?) where there were questions to whether statehood was really the #1 choice. One professor interviewed said that combined with the blank ballots (hundreds of thousand), statehood got less than 50%.


:: We have provided reliable sources to back up this argument. &mdash;[[User:Ahnoneemoos|Ahnoneemoos]] ([[User talk:Ahnoneemoos|talk]]) 14:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I am not conducting the election but a possible fair way would be to ask:
:::In response to your first query about how referendum results are presented, I provided the Direct Democracy link, but if you want other reliable or academic sources, try the [http://www.electionguide.org/elections/id/2457/ IFES] or one of the [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BVFBXa69tWMC&lpg=PA3&ots=3vksKwYg3b&dq=nohlen%20elections%20in%20asia&pg=PA254#v=onepage&q=254&f=false Nohlen books]. You'll see that the total of the options given always adds up to 100%. Blank or invalid ballots do not count towards the percentages.
:::What do you want?
::::But anyway, I agree that we must present the facts as is, and as I demonstrated CEEPUR give the results using the standard method of calculation. Blank votes are not being excluded, as they are still included in the results table, and should definitely be referred to in the text along the lines you state above. However, they do not contribute to the %s given to the different options - this is not an NPOV issue, it is standard psephology. Cheers, [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 15:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
___ Statehood
::::PS - please could you keep your response down to a readable level, as the wall of text above is [[WP:TLDR]]. Less than half a screen would be helpful. Thanks, [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 15:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
___ Commonwealth
:::::I would appreciate if someone were to summarize what exactly is the complaint here. I am unfortunately having a hard time understanding what is being proposed here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">[[User:Feedback|<big><span style="color:#039;">'''''Feed'''''</span></big>]][[Special:Contributions/Feedback|<big><span style="color:#008000;">'''''back'''''</span></big>]] <big><sup>[[User talk:Feedback|'''☎''']]</sup></big></span> 17:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
___Sovereign Free Association
:::::Please get accustomed with [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. You are completely missing the point. You have failed to provide a reliable source that states that "statehood got 61% of the vote". Period. You have been provided several reliable sources that clearly state that the results are unclear and that one cannot and should not simply state that "statehood got the majority".
___ Independence


::::: Here, from your beloved Democracy Now: [http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/8/puerto_rico_referendum_approves_us_statehood]:
:::I think commonweath would get 46% (it did), statehood about 35%, SFA 15%, independence 4%. [[User:Auchansa|Auchansa]] ([[User talk:Auchansa|talk]]) 03:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


{{quotation|But then, there was a second stage, which said, "Which status would you prefer?" And there were—in essence, the choices were statehood, which has always been a choice on these referenssdums, a new definition called free—a "sovereign free associated state," and not the commonwealth that now exists, but some nebulous new entity called "sovereign free associated state," or independence. So there were three choices. And you had about 800,000 people voted for statehood, and 437,000 voted for this free associated sovereign state, <u>but another 468,000 cast blank ballots</u>, and then you had 72,000 voted for independence. <u>So when the reports are telling you that statehood won, statehood won a majority of those who cast a choice, '''but there was a huge number who voted no,''' because the Commonwealth Party, the existing Commonwealth Party in Puerto Rico, opposed the way that the pro-statehood governor had prepared the referendum, and so it urged its members '''to cast blank ballots'''.</u> So there were actually four choices that were made there. There was those who went for statehood, those who went for the new free associated republic—or, I’m sorry, free associated state with sovereignty, those who went for the old commonwealth, and those who went for independence. So, the independence people—I mean, the statehood people say, for the first time, statehood has gotten a majority in any of these referendums, but the—those on the other side say, no, when you add up free associated states, the blank ballots and [inaudible], they overwhelmingly defeated statehood.}}
*I'm not any kind of expert but it seems to me that the largest group voted for keeping things as they are. [[User:Borock|Borock]] ([[User talk:Borock|talk]]) 15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


:::::I would appreciate if you form an argument based on something else besides, "but this is standard psephology". Well guess what? This referendum was not standard. It didn't have an against all option. It deviated from the standard, hence its results deviated from the standard as well. See also [[Singaporean national referendum, 1962]]. Same thing happened there. &mdash;[[User:Ahnoneemoos|Ahnoneemoos]] ([[User talk:Ahnoneemoos|talk]]) 17:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::Per the official results, the first question clearly stated if you would like to keep the current status. No received 54% of the votes while yes only received 46%. The question was as follows: "Está usted de acuerdo con mantener la condición política territorial actual?" Easy enough question and Puerto Rican people are mostly well educated. http://www.ceepur.org/es-pr/Documents/PapeletaModeloPlebiscito12.pdf<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.55.163.36|24.55.163.36]] ([[User talk:24.55.163.36|talk]]) 20:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{outdent}} In response to {{ping|Feedback}} in basic terms, referendum results are ordinarily shown as in the first table below, which CEEPUR and Direct Democracy do. However Ahnoneemoos wants to present them as in table 2 so that it highlights the number of blank votes. As well as being incorrect by normal standards, I believe it is also an NPOV violation, as it is deliberately showing results in an unusual format to highlight something he wants to. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 17:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
{| class=wikitable style=text-align:right
!Choice
!Votes
!%
|-
|align=left|State||834,191||61.16
|-
|align=left|Free association||454,768||33.34
|-
|align=left|Independence||74,895||5.49
|-
|align=left|'''Total valid votes'''||'''1,363,854'''||'''100'''
|-
!colspan=3|
|-
|align=left|Valid votes||1,363,854||72.59
|-
|align=left|Blank votes||498,604||26.54
|-
|align=left|Invalid votes||17,157||0.91
|-
|align=left|Total votes cast||1,878,969||100
|-
|align=left|Registered voters/turnout||2,402,941||78.19
|}


{| class=wikitable style=text-align:right
::True. But still it looks like the group wanting independence was the smallest, the group wanting statehood larger, and the group wanting to keep territory status the largest of the three. No group had the majority. If the first question had been "Should Puerto Rico become a state?" the no votes would be more than 54%. If it was "Should it be an independent nation?" the no votes would be about 90%. I'm only using the data given in this article to say this. [[User:Borock|Borock]] ([[User talk:Borock|talk]]) 17:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
!Choice
!Votes
!%
|-
|align=left|State||834,191||44.40
|-
|align=left|Free association||454,768||24.20
|-
|align=left|Independence||74,895||3.99
|-
|align=left|Blank votes||498,604||26.54
|-
|align=left|Invalid votes||17,157||0.91
|-
|align=left|Total votes cast||1,878,969||100
|-
|align=left|Registered voters/turnout||2,402,941||78.19
|}


In response to {{ping|Ahnoneemoos}} bizarre claim that I "have failed to provide a reliable source that states that "statehood got 61% of the vote"", I already have provided the links to [http://64.185.222.182/REYDI_Escrutinio12/index.html#es/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml CEEPUR's official results] and [http://www.sudd.ch/event.php?lang=en&id=pr042012 Direct Democracy], which both show statehood getting 61% of the vote. I also have never made any reference to Democracy Now, so I have no idea why you are describing them as "your beloved". Perhaps you are thinking of a dispute you are having with someone else elsewhere? [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 17:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:::This is the best mainstream article I have discovered on the topic:
:But thank you for pointing out the incorrect results on the Singaporean article - I have presented them as given in the quoted source on that page. You may also want to read up on [[WP:CANVASS]] given your non-neutral request [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Puerto_Rico#Puerto_Rican_status_referendum|here]]. Cheers, [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 17:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
www.huffingtonpost.com/maritza-stanchich-phd/puerto-rico-divided-statehood_b_2118365.html [[Special:Contributions/68.81.112.197|68.81.112.197]] ([[User talk:68.81.112.197|talk]]) 04:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
::For the record, both of you are writing way too many consecutive paragraphs that makes your discussion hard to follow. You realize that you both just wrote massive discussion the size of an RFA to discuss changing a number, right? In any case, I finally understand the issue as it seems to solely be about the table. Here's what I gather. Ahnoneemoos believes that because the referendum was biased in design, that the results should reflect the people's rejection of said referendum. I cannot help but disagree. The results of the referendum must be reported as they were. While I understand that those who did not agree with the referendum's design had no choice but to not vote, you just can't count them. If the referendum had asked "Apples or Oranges", you can't count the grape votes for either. By dividing the yes, between the totals of all votes and non-votes, you are tainting the results. This isn't just pesphology, it's basic mathematics. However, I think a compromise is in order. The fact that these votes were left blank and can have other interpretations is notable for inclusion in the article. The "Criticism" section is very small right now, and I think it could be expanded to include the interpretation of the results that Ahnoneemoos has reliably sourced. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">[[User:Feedback|<big><span style="color:#039;">'''''Feed'''''</span></big>]][[Special:Contributions/Feedback|<big><span style="color:#008000;">'''''back'''''</span></big>]] <big><sup>[[User talk:Feedback|'''☎''']]</sup></big></span> 17:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, that's basically what I suggested in an earlier response - the results should be presented as standard, and the unusually high number of blank ballots discussed in the text of the article. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 17:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::::I think another table would be beneficial to the readers' understanding of the criticism section. What we should do is include "Ballot" + "Results" + "Criticism" sections, in that order. After explaining the design of the ballot and the results, we can show the criticism section showing an alternate table, or perhaps even a comparison chart as was shown in many newspapers in Puerto Rico. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">[[User:Feedback|<big><span style="color:#039;">'''''Feed'''''</span></big>]][[Special:Contributions/Feedback|<big><span style="color:#008000;">'''''back'''''</span></big>]] <big><sup>[[User talk:Feedback|'''☎''']]</sup></big></span> 17:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::::* Please provide us with reliable sources that state that "statehood got 61% of the results". I have provided several reliable sources that state unequivocally that the results are unclear. We cannot take any sides here. We must abide to NPOV and show the results "as is": x number for statehood, x number for the others, and x number for blank ballots. Period. &mdash;[[User:Ahnoneemoos|Ahnoneemoos]] ([[User talk:Ahnoneemoos|talk]]) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


* This is not what we are discussing. We are discussing [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012&diff=622177668&oldid=622160867 your revert on the infobox]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012&diff=622160867&oldid=620826048 The infobox we had] was neutral and does not take any sides. It simply states: "this is what happened" without asserting anything. Your revert is biased as it asserts visually that statehood got a majority of the votes, when it clearly did not. You cannot show statehood getting 61% of the votes in a graph when that's not what happened. That would give a majority to statehood. Take into account the blank votes and you will see that statehood did not get a majority greater than 50%. I would also like you to re-read what I posted on WP:PUR and notice that I very clearly said, "Please provide your input, <u>whatever it may be</u>". How dare you accuse me of posting a non-neutral request? &mdash;[[User:Ahnoneemoos|Ahnoneemoos]] ([[User talk:Ahnoneemoos|talk]]) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
== Article is contradicting itself ==
::This really isn't about perception. The polls were designed in a way that excluded a popular opinion. That is unfortunate, but there's no point in editing the results. The official results that he posted are the official results. To abstain from a vote, is to abstain from calculation. If a group of 10 people, 3 vote yes, 3 vote no, and 4 abstain, that's not 30% approval, that's 50%. This is basic, and while I agree with your assertion that the poll is biased, we have to represent the result of the question. The government already issued their official results which Number 57 sourced above. Any other alternate interpretation is just that, an alternate interpretation, and should be included in another section. The infobox you are choosing to keep in the article was not the poll's intended interpretation, and is in fact, mathematically incorrect. You do not include the number of blank ballots in vote totals. That is just unethical. The number of blank ballots are notable so the reader can ''make their judgment on the validity of the poll's results''. But the actual results should not be tampered with. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">[[User:Feedback|<big><span style="color:#039;">'''''Feed'''''</span></big>]][[Special:Contributions/Feedback|<big><span style="color:#008000;">'''''back'''''</span></big>]] <big><sup>[[User talk:Feedback|'''☎''']]</sup></big></span> 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::* That's not how voting works. Please familiarize yourself with the term "blank vote" and "protest vote". You always include invalid or blank votes in the final results to give a clear and unaltered picture of what really happened. Want me to give you a real life example? Here's how the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico shows the tally for Act No. 66: "Aprobado por Cámara en Votación Final, 26-19-02-04" [http://www.oslpr.org/buscar/tl_medida_print2.asp?r=P%20C1922] [http://www.oslpr.org/files/docs/{93FA0455-63F1-4104-9D32-2ACF6C832224}.pdf] That means: 26 in favor, 19 against, 2 abstain, 4 absent. But you want to remove the abstains on this article. Sorry, it simply doesn't work that way and we have provided 5 reliable sources to backup this claim but you have chosen to ignore them. &mdash;[[User:Ahnoneemoos|Ahnoneemoos]] ([[User talk:Ahnoneemoos|talk]]) 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::P.S. You accusation that I edited your post is unfounded, and I deserve an immediate apology. I did not touch your words or removed any data you added to the page. On the contrary, you removed a perfectly good collapsable box that *I* added to preserve the flow of conversation. You're the one who touched my entries into this talk page. Next time you want to revert *my contribution*, you should ask. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">[[User:Feedback|<big><span style="color:#039;">'''''Feed'''''</span></big>]][[Special:Contributions/Feedback|<big><span style="color:#008000;">'''''back'''''</span></big>]] <big><sup>[[User talk:Feedback|'''☎''']]</sup></big></span> 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


Ahnoneemoos, I've already provided two reliable sources, including the official results from the electoral commission. Feedback has quite clearly seen them, so I don't know you keep demanding that they be provided. You talked earlier in the discussion about [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]; I think this is one of the worst cases of that I've come across. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
In the intro, at one point it says that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood and in the next sentence it sounds like it is saying that Puerto Ricans have voted in favour of statehood, saying that Puerto Rico "is expected to introduce congressional legislation admitting Puerto Rico to the Union". What do the results say? Have Puerto Ricans voted in favour of statehood within the United States or have they voted against it?--[[User:R-41|R-41]] ([[User talk:R-41|talk]]) 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:The article makes clear it's not that straigtforward. A majority wants change; with statehood being the most given answer as to what that change should entail... That not a very clear answer, but not contradictory... [[User:L.tak|L.tak]] ([[User talk:L.tak|talk]]) 20:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
::What if the questions had been: 1. Do you want Puerto Rico and the United States to continue to have a close relationship? 2. If so would you prefer the present arrangement or statehood? What do you think the answers would have been then? [[User:Borock|Borock]] ([[User talk:Borock|talk]]) 03:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
:::I think a referendum on these 4 options should be held with 3 questions: 1. Do you want Puerto Rico to become a state of the USA, yes or no? 2. Do you want Puerto Rico to become fully independent, yes or no? 3. Do you want Puerto Rico to become a Sovereign Free Associated State, yes or no? In case of a no in all three cases, PR would remain a territory of the USA, in case of a single yes the option that won is taken, since it got a majority of people behind it and there is no reason to vote blank, and in case of more than one yes, a deciding referendum between the winners is held on the new status. I think Obama should demand a vote with these rules (or maybe even better, Rubio could demand it, and Obama could say "Good idea" - that way it could get through Congress better). (Still, 805 thousand people voted for statehood and only 798 thousand for the current status, so I wouldn't say statehood was defeated) [[User:Ambi Valent|Ambi Valent]] ([[User talk:Ambi Valent|talk]]) 22:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
::::Don't you see? The people who voted for statehood preferred that to independence, but that doesn't mean that they preferred it to its present status. The people who preferred independence also would also logically prefer the present status to statehood, since statehood could never be changed. (see: [[American Civil War]]) :-) -[[User:Borock|Borock]] ([[User talk:Borock|talk]]) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm not taking sides, just trying to see the logic. It seems to me that if the vote was territory vs. state only, territory would win because it would get the votes of its own supporters and also the supporters of independence. [[User:Borock|Borock]] ([[User talk:Borock|talk]]) 03:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::Knowing a bit about my fellow countrymen, the truth is that the majority of Puerto Ricans don't want statehood. They want a form of sovereignty that doesn't allow the US to pack up and dismantle everything that was built and exists in Puerto Rico. Independence as currently defined means that the US would revoke all Puerto Rican's US citizenship (which is by the way unconstitutional and against the 13th amendment as you can't simply revoke an entire people's citizenship), the Puerto Rico would lose all the funds collected in taxes thus far, all programs and assistance set up under the current government would be dismantled, etc. It is a fairly extreme definition of independence designed to have no one vote for it. If a form of soviergnty that allowed for Puerto Ricans to keep or transition, not simply destroy, the existing infrastructure was an option, I bet you the majority of Puerto Ricans would go for that option. The problem is the US writes and designs these ballots, not the Puerto Ricans. So it is the American government saying, "you can pick what you want, but only of the options we tell you you can have and the way we tell you you can have them, with the conditions we decided... But it's your free choice"[[Special:Contributions/68.81.112.197|68.81.112.197]] ([[User talk:68.81.112.197|talk]]) 01:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


* I have provided 5 reliable sources that state unequivocally that the results are unclear. You provided CEEPUR, one link to [http://www.sudd.ch/event.php?lang=en&id=pr042012 a personal website] (not Democracy Now as you claim), and one link to a Congressional Report. Your argument is based on CEEPUR but I and other reliable sources have debunked your argument very easily by explaining to you that CEEPUR simply follows the letter of the law. You are ignoring the Associated Press, NBC, the New York Daily News, the University of Edinburgh, and even the own White House which state that the results published by CEEPUR are unclear. Why are you ignoring what five different and independent reliable sources are saying? So, let me ask you: how many times does a reliable source have to be posted for you to see them? Here they are again for your convenience: [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gonzalez-puerto-rico-complex-statehood-vote-article-1.1201608] [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-11-07/puerto-ricans-opt-for-statehood-in-referendum] [http://www.referendum.ed.ac.uk/the-plebiscite-on-puerto-ricos-constitutional-status-determining-puerto-ricos-future/] [http://nbclatino.com/2013/08/01/puerto-rico-leaders-speak-in-u-s-senate-on-referendum-islands-political-future/] [http://nbclatino.com/2012/12/03/white-house-puerto-rico-status-position-not-clear-from-plebiscite/] &mdash;[[User:Ahnoneemoos|Ahnoneemoos]] ([[User talk:Ahnoneemoos|talk]])
== Re: Blank votes ==
::Yes, there is a grand amount of rightful criticism on the meaning of these numbers. But the numbers are the same. 61% of people who voted on this question, voted for the first option. You cannot count people who did not vote into the tallies. The question is bogus and it completely isolated a grand part of the population who refused to answer it. But the number doesn't change. Using the example you stated above, if out of 100 people, 15 chose a Blind Eye, 3 chose sick, 1 chose deaf and 1 dismembered, That means 75% chose the blind eye. The 80 people who refused to answer are irrelevant to the calculations. The question sucks and is not representative of what the population wants, but you can't change the statistics. All your sources call to question the validity of the results of this referendum. But the results continue to be the same. What they provide is an alternate interpretation, one that is purely theoretical, since you can't know exactly what a non-voter's intentions were. (i.e. didn't understand the question, thought he only needed to answer one of the questions, he liked all three options, etc.) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">[[User:Feedback|<big><span style="color:#039;">'''''Feed'''''</span></big>]][[Special:Contributions/Feedback|<big><span style="color:#008000;">'''''back'''''</span></big>]] <big><sup>[[User talk:Feedback|'''☎''']]</sup></big></span> 00:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
::* The issue is that that argument is flawed. That's not how voting works. You always state the votes that were invalid and those that were left blank. Furthermore, our interpretation on the matter is irrelevant as the reliable sources ''state'' the following:


{{quotation|So a majority wants Puerto Rico to be the 51st state, right?
I do not see nor have found any evidence that blank votes are counted as valid, nor that the governor-elect had said to place the second question blank as a protest vote. I reverted the results back to the way they were depicted in the CEEPUR website. [[User:Raistuumum|Raistuumum]] ([[User talk:Raistuumum|talk]]) 01:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
:[http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Opinion/puerto-rico-status-plebiscite/story?id=17674719#.UJxirMVpfQI This source] says people were urged <s>to vote no</s>. I don't think we should change our percentages in the ballot at all, but we should write about the affect of the blank votes on the percentages.&nbsp;[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] 01:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
::As this is an opinion piece, I find this source rather dubious. If anything, the PDP would of urged voters to vote Yes on the first question, rendering the second question null no matter what answer. [[User:Raistuumum|Raistuumum]] ([[User talk:Raistuumum|talk]]) 02:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Sorry, my mind was in another place. The source says voters were urged not to vote. I doubt the author of the source is making up information.&nbsp;[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] 02:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
::::Hm... we'll have to wait for more sources then. All I'm finding so far is the governor-elect saying he is dismissing the referendum. [[User:Raistuumum|Raistuumum]] ([[User talk:Raistuumum|talk]]) 02:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the source added is much more like it. Thanks to whoever added it. [[User:Raistuumum|Raistuumum]] ([[User talk:Raistuumum|talk]]) 04:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
:Since people kept changing the numbers in the table I went ahead and added a second column so both percentages can be seen. Should prevent some revert wars. — [[User:DanPMK|MK]] (<sup>[[User Talk:DanPMK|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:contributions/DanPMK|c]]</sub>) 04:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


Not exactly.}}
The introduction stating percentages of "voters" that chose each of the three options was incorrect. The percentages given are those of "valid votes", assuming a blank ballot is "invalid". There were many voters who cast blank ballots -- the article says so. I have not changed the percentages, as that appears to be controversial, but I did change the description so it is not inaccurate. [[User:Zaslav|Zaslav]] ([[User talk:Zaslav|talk]]) 01:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


{{quotation|So statehood did <u>not</u> actually receive 61% of the vote [...]}}
Given that in the last plebicite, "None of the Above" won with 50%, and given that this time that was taken off the ballot and that there were many people who voted on the first half of the ballot but left the second half blank, I think we can assume most Puerto Ricans and unsatisfied with the current status, but do NOT want statehood, and many do not care for the options presented as it. When including blank ballots on question two, we see the numbers are virtually the same as the 1998 and 1967 votes, meaning Puerto Ricans are consistent in how they feel. [[Special:Contributions/68.81.112.197|68.81.112.197]] ([[User talk:68.81.112.197|talk]]) 17:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


{{quotation|The White House, however, said the vote was unclear.}}
The interpretation of Blank votes is simply original research. Here on the States just count the people that casted the vote.
{{Original research}}


::: CEEPUR is a government agency ruled by laws. It must present data as the law states. It is what we call a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source which is fine BUT other reliable sources debunk that result. In cases like this we go with what the secondary reliable sources say.
Is the Huffington Post good enough to show I am not the only human being in the world who has not escaped the obvious conclusion about the blank ballots? Why vote you are unhappy in part one and leave part two blank? Except that, when we look 15 years back, the basically numbers haven't dramatically changed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julio-pabon/statehood-vote-in-puerto-_b_2094586.html
In any case, the US congress tomorrow could declare Puerto Rico a state even in 100% of the people voted to become independent. How they count the ballot is up to them. The various plebiscites and referendums are also meaningless because they have usually been written by one political party or the US Congress, effectively stating you are free to choose from the options WE have already selected for you. Puerto Ricans have consistently rejected these options crafted by other people as what they want or an expression of their choice.[[Special:Contributions/68.81.112.197|68.81.112.197]] ([[User talk:68.81.112.197|talk]]) 01:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


::: &mdash;[[User:Ahnoneemoos|Ahnoneemoos]] ([[User talk:Ahnoneemoos|talk]]) 02:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
And now I will quote the Washington Post
::::You are determined to misunderstand. As bitey as Number 57 sounds by shouting [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]], it's very clear. What's worse is that you are not posting ''any'' misinformation. You are just misunderstanding your sources. I'll tackle all 3 of them in order:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/puerto-rico-votes-on-whether-to-change-relationship-with-us-elects-governor-and-legislators/2012/11/06/d87278ae-288b-11e2-aaa5-ac786110c486_story.html
:::::•'''So a majority wants Puerto Rico to be the 51st state, right? Not exactly'''- "''Majority"'' in this sentence means something completely different than what you think it means. The person is saying that the majority of Puerto Ricans do not exactly want statehood, because a lot of people left it blank. <u>Of the people who voted</u>, 61% continues to be the valid number. And THAT is what the results measure, nothing more and nothing less. The controversy is whether or not that sample is representative of the island when 400,000 people decided to leave it in blank.
"Puerto Rico’s voters endorse seeking US statehood but ballot results raise questions"
:::::•'''So statehood did not actually receive 61% of the vote...'''- This statement is false on its own without providing proper context... He says "''until you ignore the nearly half a million people who cast blank ballots''". The sentence is true, but it's badly worded. Since you don't have to include blank totals in the calculations, you don't ignore anything. People decided to abstain. They chose to have their voices ignored. Again, if the question were Apples vs. Oranges, the people who like neither won't vote. They have no say in the final tally. It would be silly to do it otherwise.
"Tuesday’s vote comes with an asterisk and an imposing political reality: The island remains bitterly divided over its relationship to the United States and many question the validity of this week’s referendum.
:::::•'''The White House, however, said the vote was unclear.'''- This is a true statement. You, I, the White House and many reliable sources consider the results of this poll to be inconclusive due to it not being a representation of all of Puerto Ricans. 61% of the people who voted preferred statehood than the rest of the things listed. The problem is that "the people who voted" is arguably not representative of Puerto Ricans as a whole. But these numbers don't count the opinions of Puerto Ricans as a whole, they count the people who participated in the referendum. Considering that the majority of Puerto Ricans ''didn't even go out to vote'', the results would easily be changed no matter the result. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">[[User:Feedback|<big><span style="color:#039;">'''''Feed'''''</span></big>]][[Special:Contributions/Feedback|<big><span style="color:#008000;">'''''back'''''</span></big>]] <big><sup>[[User talk:Feedback|'''☎''']]</sup></big></span> 05:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Other reliable sources do not "debunk" the result; they merely point out the number of blank votes was rather high, and both Feedback and I have clearly said that this should be covered in the article text. However, the results themselves in terms of the percentages are not able to be debunked; they simply are as they are.
::::::Also, I really don't understand your repeated references to Democracy Now. I have never made any reference to Democracy Now except to ask why you are claiming that I have done so. It is very difficult to have a reasoned debate when one of the parties involved is making things up. [[User:Number 57|<span style="color:orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color:green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color:blue;">7</span>]] 08:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


== "No" totals discrepancy ==
Nearly a half million voters chose to leave a portion of the ballot blank. And voters also ousted the pro-statehood governor, eliminating one of the main advocates for a cause that would need the approval of the U.S. Congress.


Hello. I became aware that an IP editor had [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|in good faith]], miscorrected the percentage data in the 2012 column of [[Political status of Puerto Rico#Plebiscites|Political status of Puerto Rico § Plebiscites]]. In the process of examining this edit, I became aware that the 2012 referendum was in two parts, which created confusion in how that single table is displayed.
“Statehood won a victory without precedent but it’s an artificial victory,” said Angel Israel Rivera Ortiz, a political science professor at the University of Puerto Rico."[[Special:Contributions/68.81.112.197|68.81.112.197]] ([[User talk:68.81.112.197|talk]]) 01:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

::::Since when, a mark or a left blank vote means whatever a blogger wants to make believe? That is the question!
You can make a multiples Interpretation about blank ballots, the one that you propose is just one of the original research of a blogger or an editorial position trying to impose their personal opinion over the facts!
The [[Puerto Rico Supreme Court]] declared in 2009 on the case Cáceres v. Comision Estatal de Elecciones CEE:

Indeed, in that case ordered that blank ballots as votes were awarded not
favoring any political status options for Puerto Rico.
In doing so, we rely on the fundamental right and preeminent suffrage, recognized both in our constitutional order as in the United
States of America. At that time, we also note that
that universal suffrage was protected constitutionally both in the general election as in referendums and plebiscites. Reference:[http://www.ramajudicial.pr/ts/2009/2009TSPR97.pdf Caceres v. CEE]

It not feasible an interpretation without entering on Original Research or Personal Opinion of what the blogger want us to believe! The article must include just reliable sources! Bloggers are not! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.50.45.79|66.50.45.79]] ([[User talk:66.50.45.79|talk]]) 02:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:In an election a blank vote is meaningless, and the reasons behind can be nothing but speculative. People regularly under vote or blank vote in all american elections for a wide variety of reasons. There should be no specific meaning listed in the article regarding the blank votes.[[User:XavierGreen|XavierGreen]] ([[User talk:XavierGreen|talk]]) 04:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

:: A blank vote is meaningless in the United States of America! I agree with XavierGreen. There should be no specific meaning listed in the article regarding the blank votes.
[[User:Buzity|Buzity]] ([[User talk:Buzity|talk]]) 04:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a discussion going on here but, as a resident of Puerto Rico I can attest that the Governor-elect and his party had requested their voters to leave the second question unanswered. As a matter of fact, there are several sources within the article (like [http://www.elnuevodia.com/intensodebatesobretriunfodelaestadidad-1380677.html this] and [http://www.elnuevodia.com/blog-la_aritmetica_del_plebiscito-1382925.html this]) that mention how it was a directive of the PPD to do so. Also, one of those references talks about the ensuing argument that is now in the news about the validity of the results. A lot of references in the article expose what some people see as an ambiguity on the results due to the blank question (not ballot). [[User:Thief12|Thief12]] ([[User talk:Thief12|talk]]) 14:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

:Indeed, the only meaning being imposed was that there was no meaning, and could be no meaning. It is clear that these ballots cast a vote clearly marking "No" to question one, that they were unsatisfied with the current status. No on argues against that. It was clear and decisive choice for question one. It is clear that for part two they left it blank. If it is agreed they are unsatisfied with the current status, it is also clear that half a million ballots that are unhappy with the current status (see question one) are also not in favor of selective the presented options, otherwise they would pick the option they liked. That is simply logic, not interpretation. If those who were clear enough on question on to select "no", they were also clear in their refusal to play the game and select any of the other options. It is clear that those voters did not find any of the other options on the ballot worth voting for. In any case, this just once again shows how ridiculous and a sham these referendums are in Puerto Rico. Whether their opinion matters or not, of course it doesn't. The opinions of Puerto Ricans in their relationship to the United States has never mattered in 114 years. It didn't matter when the Jones Act was forced on Puerto Rico in 1917, making Puerto Ricans US citizens even when the Puerto Rican government opposed it, resulting three weeks later in a draft into World War I. The United States did not consult the Puerto Ricans when they annexed the nation 114 years ago, and they haven't once given the nation the opportunity to construct their own ballot since then, dictating and not asking about the terms of the status between the US and Puerto Rico in referendums written by the US congress, not the Puerto Rican government or people. [[Special:Contributions/68.81.112.197|68.81.112.197]] ([[User talk:68.81.112.197|talk]]) 15:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
::I think most Americans would agree with me that the people of Puerto Rico should have what they want, statehood, independence, territory status, whatever. Most of us would also agree that the US has a history of racism and even imperialism. However there does not seem to be evidence that the blank votes were against territory status, or that this election showed that the majority favored statehood. [[User:Borock|Borock]] ([[User talk:Borock|talk]]) 15:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

== Check vs. X ==

On the charts showing the results, the first question has an X by the most chosen response, while the second question has a check. These ought to be standardized. [[Special:Contributions/24.1.0.232|24.1.0.232]] ([[User talk:24.1.0.232|talk]]) 05:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

== Extensive repetition! ==

[[User:Wegesrand|Wegesrand]] ([[User talk:Wegesrand|talk]]) 11:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

== Luis Agrait quote ==

This quote by history professor Luis Agrait, on [[CNN]], has been deleted twice so far arguing the notability of Agrait:

:History professor Luis Agrait said to [[CNN]] that "a large number of ballots -- one-third of all votes cast -- were left blank on the question of preferred alternative status. If you assume those blank votes are anti-statehood votes, the true result for the statehood option would be less than 50%"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html|title=Puerto Ricans favor statehood for the first time|work=[[CNN]]|author=Castillo, Mariano|date=November 8, 2012}}</ref>

First, Agrait's quote actually encompasses in a simple argument where the alleged ambiguity in the votes comes from. Second, regardless of how notable Agrait is (which I don't think should necessarily come into question when quoting him in article), the guy was quoted by CNN, which is easily one of the biggest news network in the world. That's why I think his quote belongs there. [[User:Thief12|Thief12]] ([[User talk:Thief12|talk]]) 22:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

== Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President - Official Results of the Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress Inform the Congress ==



[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0OdMdvVGyuHOC03cEVlR0xnOFU/edit?pli=1 Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President - Official Results of the 2012 Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgF_55iZc Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress oficially informing the results of the 2012 Plebiscite]


I believe I have corrected the display issue, but now I have a new question, specifically about the totals in [[2012 Puerto Rican status referendum#Results|2012 Puerto Rican status referendum § Results]]:<br />
== Canvass finished; final results published; differ from article ==
In the former article, the "Commonwealth" votes are the '''Yes''' votes in '''Part I''' of the latter article, totaling 828,077 votes. In the latter article, '''Part II''' is divided into three main options, receiving 834,191 votes ("State"), 454,768 vote ("Free"), and 74,895 votes ("Independent") respectively, which are also displayed in the former article. If these options are classified as '''No''' votes in '''Part II''', then they together exceed the 970,910 '''No''' votes in '''Part I''' by a considerable margin.


I realize that confusion played a considerable role in the 2012 referendum, but shouldn't the tables between the two Wikipedia articles be less ambiguous in relation to each other, as far as the total votes are concerned? A margin of error is expected, but shouldn't the total of '''No''' votes in '''Part II''' be a bit closer matched with the '''No''' votes in '''Part I''' in the latter article? Please clarify, but if someone could also check the table correlation between the two articles to make sure I haven't goofed up the former article's table in the process, that would be much appreciated; thank you. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;&#160;[[User:CJDOS|CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR]]&#160;([[User talk:CJDOS|talk]]) 23:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)</span> <span class="nowrap">(edited 23:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC))</span>
The official final results vary a bit from those published on the article as of this date. Please see [http://div1.ceepur.org/REYDI_Escrutinio/index.html] and update the article accordingly. &mdash;[[User:Ahnoneemoos|Ahnoneemoos]] ([[User talk:Ahnoneemoos|talk]]) 18:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:35, 7 February 2024

Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions - Congressional Research Service CRS Report

[edit]

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report


Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions

Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President - Official Results of the Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress Inform the Congress

[edit]

Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President - Official Results of the 2012 Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite

Congressman Pierluisi on the Congress oficially informing the results of the 2012 Plebiscite

Results

[edit]

Some editors have changed the results to show the blank ballots counted within the percentage for the second option. This is not how referendum results should be presented - percentages should only be calculated based on the valid votes - this is how reliable psephologist sources present such information.

The official results from CEEPUR use this correct format - see their website. This is repeated by reliable sources such as the Direct Democracy, the best source around for referendums. The Congressional Research Service specifically states that "The certified results list 498,604 “blank votes,” but do not include them when calculating percentages listed in the final results."). Number 57 10:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide us a policy that states that, "This is not how referendum results should be presented - percentages should only be calculated based on the valid votes." Anyone can swing a referendum to favor a desired outcome by fooling outsiders. 25% of voters left the ballot in blank in protest. There was no "none of the above" option; this shows you how the outcome was premeditated. It was not a mere 1% that left the ballots blank. Twenty six motherfucking percent did. That's extraordinary. CEEPUR must follow the local law but in Wikipedia we adhere to WP:NPOV and it's obvious that if we follow the letter of the law in this case rather than the interpretation of the law, we would be pushing a biased agenda favoring statehood.
Let me give you an example: if I were to ask people, "Do you want to die?" Most people would answer, "No." But if in a second question I asked, "If you were to live forever how you would prefer to live: sick for the rest of your life, dismembered, deaf, or blind in one eye?" Most people would choose, "blind in one eye" but is this really a fair question? Where is the option for, "jesus I don't want to live forever in any of those conditions!" Since there's no such option on the ballot some people would leave the ballot blank in protest for the lack of "none of the above".
Here are several sources that explain this phenomena:

New York Daily News:

And the results were: 809,000 votes for statehood, only 73,000 for independence, and 441,000 for sovereign free association.

So a majority wants Puerto Rico to be the 51st state, right?

Not exactly. More than 470,000 people cast blank ballots in protest of the second part of the referendum, following a recommendation from the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party.

So statehood did not actually receive 61% of the vote — until you ignore the nearly half a million people who cast blank ballots. If you factor in that protest vote, statehood garnered 45%, a result that’s virtually unchanged from previous referendums in 1993 and 1998.

Associated Press:

But Tuesday's vote comes with an asterisk and an imposing political reality: The island remains bitterly divided over its relationship to the United States and many question the validity of this week's referendum.

Nearly a half million voters chose to leave a portion of the ballot blank.

University of Edinburgh: Among the choices offered by the second question, federalism received 61%, sovereign ELA 33.3%, and independence 5.5%, but there were 480,918 blank votes, so if those votes were to be counted, federalism received only 46% of the vote.

NBC: Voters were asked two questions: the first asked if people favored the current status as a commonwealth or not, and the second listed the alternatives. The status options included becoming a state, and total independence. The White House, however, said the vote was unclear because 466,000 people did not specify a preference on an alternative status, primarily because the current commonwealth option was left out.

NBC:

White House spokesperson Jay Carney was asked today whether President Barack Obama intends to support a push for Puerto Rican statehood following plebiscite results in the island. Carney explained that the administration did not feel the plebiscite’s results were clear.

“This administration, as you know, is committed to the principle that the question of political status is a matter of self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico,” said Carney. He explained the results show Puerto Ricans do want a resolution to the status issue — about 54 percent of Puerto Ricans voted for a status change — but “I think the outcome was a little less clear than that because of the process itself,” Carney said.

As we must adhere to NPOV, we must present the facts "as is" and leave them to interpretation to our own readers. We just say: "hey statehood got these many numbers, independence these many, and blank or invalid got these many." That's it. Saying that statehood got 61% is equivocal and pushes an agenda. Laws are laws. When laws are unfair people protest against them. That's what they did. The party in power found a flaw and ran a referendum to favor their agenda. Puerto Ricans didn't have any tool against it except leaving the ballot blank intentionally to show the whole world that a significant minority of Puerto Ricans didn't consider the ballot fair.
A vote is a deliberate act towards a desired outcome. 25% of voters deliberately wanted to show to the world that they didn't agree with the options given on the second question. They casted a vote by leaving the ballot blank intentionally.
We have provided reliable sources to back up this argument. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your first query about how referendum results are presented, I provided the Direct Democracy link, but if you want other reliable or academic sources, try the IFES or one of the Nohlen books. You'll see that the total of the options given always adds up to 100%. Blank or invalid ballots do not count towards the percentages.
But anyway, I agree that we must present the facts as is, and as I demonstrated CEEPUR give the results using the standard method of calculation. Blank votes are not being excluded, as they are still included in the results table, and should definitely be referred to in the text along the lines you state above. However, they do not contribute to the %s given to the different options - this is not an NPOV issue, it is standard psephology. Cheers, Number 57 15:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS - please could you keep your response down to a readable level, as the wall of text above is WP:TLDR. Less than half a screen would be helpful. Thanks, Number 57 15:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if someone were to summarize what exactly is the complaint here. I am unfortunately having a hard time understanding what is being proposed here. Feedback 17:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please get accustomed with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are completely missing the point. You have failed to provide a reliable source that states that "statehood got 61% of the vote". Period. You have been provided several reliable sources that clearly state that the results are unclear and that one cannot and should not simply state that "statehood got the majority".
Here, from your beloved Democracy Now: [1]:

But then, there was a second stage, which said, "Which status would you prefer?" And there were—in essence, the choices were statehood, which has always been a choice on these referenssdums, a new definition called free—a "sovereign free associated state," and not the commonwealth that now exists, but some nebulous new entity called "sovereign free associated state," or independence. So there were three choices. And you had about 800,000 people voted for statehood, and 437,000 voted for this free associated sovereign state, but another 468,000 cast blank ballots, and then you had 72,000 voted for independence. So when the reports are telling you that statehood won, statehood won a majority of those who cast a choice, but there was a huge number who voted no, because the Commonwealth Party, the existing Commonwealth Party in Puerto Rico, opposed the way that the pro-statehood governor had prepared the referendum, and so it urged its members to cast blank ballots. So there were actually four choices that were made there. There was those who went for statehood, those who went for the new free associated republic—or, I’m sorry, free associated state with sovereignty, those who went for the old commonwealth, and those who went for independence. So, the independence people—I mean, the statehood people say, for the first time, statehood has gotten a majority in any of these referendums, but the—those on the other side say, no, when you add up free associated states, the blank ballots and [inaudible], they overwhelmingly defeated statehood.

I would appreciate if you form an argument based on something else besides, "but this is standard psephology". Well guess what? This referendum was not standard. It didn't have an against all option. It deviated from the standard, hence its results deviated from the standard as well. See also Singaporean national referendum, 1962. Same thing happened there. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @Feedback: in basic terms, referendum results are ordinarily shown as in the first table below, which CEEPUR and Direct Democracy do. However Ahnoneemoos wants to present them as in table 2 so that it highlights the number of blank votes. As well as being incorrect by normal standards, I believe it is also an NPOV violation, as it is deliberately showing results in an unusual format to highlight something he wants to. Number 57 17:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Choice Votes %
State 834,191 61.16
Free association 454,768 33.34
Independence 74,895 5.49
Total valid votes 1,363,854 100
Valid votes 1,363,854 72.59
Blank votes 498,604 26.54
Invalid votes 17,157 0.91
Total votes cast 1,878,969 100
Registered voters/turnout 2,402,941 78.19
Choice Votes %
State 834,191 44.40
Free association 454,768 24.20
Independence 74,895 3.99
Blank votes 498,604 26.54
Invalid votes 17,157 0.91
Total votes cast 1,878,969 100
Registered voters/turnout 2,402,941 78.19

In response to @Ahnoneemoos: bizarre claim that I "have failed to provide a reliable source that states that "statehood got 61% of the vote"", I already have provided the links to CEEPUR's official results and Direct Democracy, which both show statehood getting 61% of the vote. I also have never made any reference to Democracy Now, so I have no idea why you are describing them as "your beloved". Perhaps you are thinking of a dispute you are having with someone else elsewhere? Number 57 17:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But thank you for pointing out the incorrect results on the Singaporean article - I have presented them as given in the quoted source on that page. You may also want to read up on WP:CANVASS given your non-neutral request here. Cheers, Number 57 17:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, both of you are writing way too many consecutive paragraphs that makes your discussion hard to follow. You realize that you both just wrote massive discussion the size of an RFA to discuss changing a number, right? In any case, I finally understand the issue as it seems to solely be about the table. Here's what I gather. Ahnoneemoos believes that because the referendum was biased in design, that the results should reflect the people's rejection of said referendum. I cannot help but disagree. The results of the referendum must be reported as they were. While I understand that those who did not agree with the referendum's design had no choice but to not vote, you just can't count them. If the referendum had asked "Apples or Oranges", you can't count the grape votes for either. By dividing the yes, between the totals of all votes and non-votes, you are tainting the results. This isn't just pesphology, it's basic mathematics. However, I think a compromise is in order. The fact that these votes were left blank and can have other interpretations is notable for inclusion in the article. The "Criticism" section is very small right now, and I think it could be expanded to include the interpretation of the results that Ahnoneemoos has reliably sourced. Feedback 17:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's basically what I suggested in an earlier response - the results should be presented as standard, and the unusually high number of blank ballots discussed in the text of the article. Number 57 17:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think another table would be beneficial to the readers' understanding of the criticism section. What we should do is include "Ballot" + "Results" + "Criticism" sections, in that order. After explaining the design of the ballot and the results, we can show the criticism section showing an alternate table, or perhaps even a comparison chart as was shown in many newspapers in Puerto Rico. Feedback 17:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide us with reliable sources that state that "statehood got 61% of the results". I have provided several reliable sources that state unequivocally that the results are unclear. We cannot take any sides here. We must abide to NPOV and show the results "as is": x number for statehood, x number for the others, and x number for blank ballots. Period. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your revert on the infobox. The infobox we had was neutral and does not take any sides. It simply states: "this is what happened" without asserting anything. Your revert is biased as it asserts visually that statehood got a majority of the votes, when it clearly did not. You cannot show statehood getting 61% of the votes in a graph when that's not what happened. That would give a majority to statehood. Take into account the blank votes and you will see that statehood did not get a majority greater than 50%. I would also like you to re-read what I posted on WP:PUR and notice that I very clearly said, "Please provide your input, whatever it may be". How dare you accuse me of posting a non-neutral request? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This really isn't about perception. The polls were designed in a way that excluded a popular opinion. That is unfortunate, but there's no point in editing the results. The official results that he posted are the official results. To abstain from a vote, is to abstain from calculation. If a group of 10 people, 3 vote yes, 3 vote no, and 4 abstain, that's not 30% approval, that's 50%. This is basic, and while I agree with your assertion that the poll is biased, we have to represent the result of the question. The government already issued their official results which Number 57 sourced above. Any other alternate interpretation is just that, an alternate interpretation, and should be included in another section. The infobox you are choosing to keep in the article was not the poll's intended interpretation, and is in fact, mathematically incorrect. You do not include the number of blank ballots in vote totals. That is just unethical. The number of blank ballots are notable so the reader can make their judgment on the validity of the poll's results. But the actual results should not be tampered with. Feedback 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not how voting works. Please familiarize yourself with the term "blank vote" and "protest vote". You always include invalid or blank votes in the final results to give a clear and unaltered picture of what really happened. Want me to give you a real life example? Here's how the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico shows the tally for Act No. 66: "Aprobado por Cámara en Votación Final, 26-19-02-04" [2] [3] That means: 26 in favor, 19 against, 2 abstain, 4 absent. But you want to remove the abstains on this article. Sorry, it simply doesn't work that way and we have provided 5 reliable sources to backup this claim but you have chosen to ignore them. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You accusation that I edited your post is unfounded, and I deserve an immediate apology. I did not touch your words or removed any data you added to the page. On the contrary, you removed a perfectly good collapsable box that *I* added to preserve the flow of conversation. You're the one who touched my entries into this talk page. Next time you want to revert *my contribution*, you should ask. Feedback 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnoneemoos, I've already provided two reliable sources, including the official results from the electoral commission. Feedback has quite clearly seen them, so I don't know you keep demanding that they be provided. You talked earlier in the discussion about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; I think this is one of the worst cases of that I've come across. Number 57 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have provided 5 reliable sources that state unequivocally that the results are unclear. You provided CEEPUR, one link to a personal website (not Democracy Now as you claim), and one link to a Congressional Report. Your argument is based on CEEPUR but I and other reliable sources have debunked your argument very easily by explaining to you that CEEPUR simply follows the letter of the law. You are ignoring the Associated Press, NBC, the New York Daily News, the University of Edinburgh, and even the own White House which state that the results published by CEEPUR are unclear. Why are you ignoring what five different and independent reliable sources are saying? So, let me ask you: how many times does a reliable source have to be posted for you to see them? Here they are again for your convenience: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]Ahnoneemoos (talk)
Yes, there is a grand amount of rightful criticism on the meaning of these numbers. But the numbers are the same. 61% of people who voted on this question, voted for the first option. You cannot count people who did not vote into the tallies. The question is bogus and it completely isolated a grand part of the population who refused to answer it. But the number doesn't change. Using the example you stated above, if out of 100 people, 15 chose a Blind Eye, 3 chose sick, 1 chose deaf and 1 dismembered, That means 75% chose the blind eye. The 80 people who refused to answer are irrelevant to the calculations. The question sucks and is not representative of what the population wants, but you can't change the statistics. All your sources call to question the validity of the results of this referendum. But the results continue to be the same. What they provide is an alternate interpretation, one that is purely theoretical, since you can't know exactly what a non-voter's intentions were. (i.e. didn't understand the question, thought he only needed to answer one of the questions, he liked all three options, etc.) Feedback 00:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that that argument is flawed. That's not how voting works. You always state the votes that were invalid and those that were left blank. Furthermore, our interpretation on the matter is irrelevant as the reliable sources state the following:

So a majority wants Puerto Rico to be the 51st state, right? Not exactly.

So statehood did not actually receive 61% of the vote [...]

The White House, however, said the vote was unclear.

CEEPUR is a government agency ruled by laws. It must present data as the law states. It is what we call a WP:PRIMARY source which is fine BUT other reliable sources debunk that result. In cases like this we go with what the secondary reliable sources say.
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are determined to misunderstand. As bitey as Number 57 sounds by shouting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it's very clear. What's worse is that you are not posting any misinformation. You are just misunderstanding your sources. I'll tackle all 3 of them in order:
So a majority wants Puerto Rico to be the 51st state, right? Not exactly- "Majority" in this sentence means something completely different than what you think it means. The person is saying that the majority of Puerto Ricans do not exactly want statehood, because a lot of people left it blank. Of the people who voted, 61% continues to be the valid number. And THAT is what the results measure, nothing more and nothing less. The controversy is whether or not that sample is representative of the island when 400,000 people decided to leave it in blank.
So statehood did not actually receive 61% of the vote...- This statement is false on its own without providing proper context... He says "until you ignore the nearly half a million people who cast blank ballots". The sentence is true, but it's badly worded. Since you don't have to include blank totals in the calculations, you don't ignore anything. People decided to abstain. They chose to have their voices ignored. Again, if the question were Apples vs. Oranges, the people who like neither won't vote. They have no say in the final tally. It would be silly to do it otherwise.
The White House, however, said the vote was unclear.- This is a true statement. You, I, the White House and many reliable sources consider the results of this poll to be inconclusive due to it not being a representation of all of Puerto Ricans. 61% of the people who voted preferred statehood than the rest of the things listed. The problem is that "the people who voted" is arguably not representative of Puerto Ricans as a whole. But these numbers don't count the opinions of Puerto Ricans as a whole, they count the people who participated in the referendum. Considering that the majority of Puerto Ricans didn't even go out to vote, the results would easily be changed no matter the result. Feedback 05:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other reliable sources do not "debunk" the result; they merely point out the number of blank votes was rather high, and both Feedback and I have clearly said that this should be covered in the article text. However, the results themselves in terms of the percentages are not able to be debunked; they simply are as they are.
Also, I really don't understand your repeated references to Democracy Now. I have never made any reference to Democracy Now except to ask why you are claiming that I have done so. It is very difficult to have a reasoned debate when one of the parties involved is making things up. Number 57 08:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No" totals discrepancy

[edit]

Hello. I became aware that an IP editor had in good faith, miscorrected the percentage data in the 2012 column of Political status of Puerto Rico § Plebiscites. In the process of examining this edit, I became aware that the 2012 referendum was in two parts, which created confusion in how that single table is displayed.

I believe I have corrected the display issue, but now I have a new question, specifically about the totals in 2012 Puerto Rican status referendum § Results:
In the former article, the "Commonwealth" votes are the Yes votes in Part I of the latter article, totaling 828,077 votes. In the latter article, Part II is divided into three main options, receiving 834,191 votes ("State"), 454,768 vote ("Free"), and 74,895 votes ("Independent") respectively, which are also displayed in the former article. If these options are classified as No votes in Part II, then they together exceed the 970,910 No votes in Part I by a considerable margin.

I realize that confusion played a considerable role in the 2012 referendum, but shouldn't the tables between the two Wikipedia articles be less ambiguous in relation to each other, as far as the total votes are concerned? A margin of error is expected, but shouldn't the total of No votes in Part II be a bit closer matched with the No votes in Part I in the latter article? Please clarify, but if someone could also check the table correlation between the two articles to make sure I haven't goofed up the former article's table in the process, that would be much appreciated; thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC) (edited 23:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]