Talk:Puerto Rico

2006-2012 Economic depression

This article should have more information about the current economic depression in Puerto Rico, which started in 2006 and it's still ongoing. ★ Nacho ★ (Contact me) ★ 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

DATA Yes, the article should include actual data about income per head, and not data from the year 2009...At present, Puerto Rican income per head at PPP has been already surpassed by Chile and Argentina in Latinamerica, and by most Eastern European nations (Slovenia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Slovakia, Poland...)--88.8.210.171 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

English translation for NPP

Several of the top leaders of Puerto Rico's governing party (NPP) and its government, including Gov. Luis Fortuño, the party president, and Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock, the party's chief spokesperson on the U.S. mainland, translate "Partido Nuevo Progresista" as "New Party for Progress", rather than "New Progressive Party". They have a point because in 1967 (year of the nationally bipartisan NPP's foundation by a Republican leader) Spanish, "progresista" referred to being in favor of "progress", while the English word "progressive" in 2012 is almost synonimous to "liberal". This, New Party for Progress is a more accurate translation of "Partido Nuevo Progresista", since the NPP is a party that includes both Republican conservatives, such as Fortuño, as well as Democratic moderates, such as McClintock and Congressman Pedro Pierluisi.

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

Could be updated the recent event section with the CRS Report Information?

Congressional Research Service Report

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

October 2, 2012

Congressional Research Service

By the way, the results of the 2012 Puerto Rican status referendum are in. It looks like a majority chose to do away with the current status, and a clear majority voted for full US Statehood. (According to El Nuevo Dia: http://resultados.puertoricodecide.com/2012/elecciones-generales/)

Your statement (whoever you are) is not completely true. As per your source, 26% of the voters left the second question blank. So, only 45% of voters chose statehood, while 55% chose other options: None of the above (26% blank ballots), Sovereign ELA (24%), Independence (4%) or expressed their disagreement with the proceeding invalidating their ballots (1%). Clearly, less than 50% of voters chose statehood.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't correct the edits done to the article until the count is over, but the line "Puerto Rico voted itself into statehood" is clearly misleading.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Statehood date

When will there be official info on Puerto Rico's date of statehood?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe never. It is not a foregone conclusion that Puerto Rico will become a state. Territories don't make themselves states. The United States Congress does. Cresix (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Mostly Mestizo?

In the statistics box. Where is the source for that? How can a population which was overwhelmingly white in 1900 be "overwhelmingly mestizo" when the vast majority of whites arrived in puerto rico after 1860 and the USA annexed it in the 1890s, and brought with it its anti-miscegenation laws and culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.66.76 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Location

The map location gives no idea where this is - wtf

If you would bother to take one second (OK, may be one and one-half seconds) to click the image and look at it in enlarged form, you should be able to figure it out, assuming you know where the North American continent is located. Cresix (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico vote for U.S. Statehood

This article must be updated in relation to the 2O12 Puerto Rico Plebiscite requesting the Statehood and rejecting the current Territorial Status.

The first question on the plebiscite asked voters whether they want to maintain the current commonwealth status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution or whether they prefer a nonterritorial option. A second question on the plebiscite had three status options: statehood, independence or free association.

The result of the 2012 referendum is that 54% of the population voted to change the territorial status quo, and 61.3% of the population voted for the statehood. Puerto Rico vote for U.S. Statehood

Puerto Rico provided a clear electoral mandate rejecting the present form of territorial status and requested to the U.S. Congress to admitted Puerto Rico to be the 51st State of the United States of America on the November 6, 2012 Plebiscite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to actually read the article before placing comments here. It was added to the article about one day ago. Cresix (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Eventhough the Puerto Ricans have voted to make Puerto Rico the 51st state, that request must be approved by Congress before it can physically be a state. The article is currently on semi-protection (meaning only registered users can edit) but I think it should be changed to full protection cause there are going to be a lot of edit warring to this page in the next couple of months. Snoozlepet (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

26% of the voters left the second question blank, taking a political position against the options in this question of the referendum. So, actually only 45% of voters (not population) chose statehood, while 55% chose other options: None of the above (26% blank ballots), Sovereign ELA (24%), Independence (4%) or expressed their disagreement with the proceeding invalidating their ballots (1%). Clearly, less than 50% of voters chose statehood. If you look at actual count, 800,000 people voted for statehood. That's 22% of Puerto Rico's current population. You say "Puerto Rico requested to the U.S. Congress to admit Puerto Rico to be the 51st State of the United States of America." C'mon. Be serious. All these changes to the article are misleading and untrue.--Coquidragon (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Coquidragon: blank ballots (in this case, leaving the second question blank) cannot invalidate the choice that trumped among all three status choices (nor can they nullify votes cast, period: this is the case in any election). If you had an election between two candidates in a congressional district, 10 people showed up, but only three actually marked a choice on the ballot, then whichever candidate for Congress got two votes in that election would win. You can't penalize those that decided to make a democratic choice on account of those that decided not to - regardless of their reasoning. Only 38% of the voting population in the United States voted in the 2010 election: this doesn't render any of the elections that took place that year invalid.--Polisci101 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Polisci101, I agree with what you say up to a point. There is no doubt in my mind that statehood won the referendum, a valid referendum in which 78% of registered voters participated. Statehood won with 62% of the positive votes to the 2nd question. What I disagree with is the text that states that there is a clear mandate for statehood. Leaving the ballot blank in this referendum was a choice, it was the instruction given by the 2nd largest party since its status wasn't included in the 2nd question. There is a lot of politics in the why's that I don't agree with. Yet, leaving the ballot blank in this specific referendum was a vote for "I don't want any of these." Of the people who showed to vote on the referendum, only 45% voted for statehood. Although the mandate from the referendum is indeed statehood as the choice with the highest number of votes, it is not a clear mandate in as much as less than half of the voters chose it. To this, we should add that due to corruption and bad politics, Puerto Rico apathy has grown to a point where only 66% of people in voting age (I didn't know about the 38% in the US, thanks and wow!) actually showed up to vote. When only 1/4 of the population of the island chose statehood, the mandate, however valid, loses strength. I don't know if I explained myself well. I agree with the results (although they are not my preference), but not with the lecture given to them. The current governor should indeed now pursue actions in accordance with the results of the referendum, but the US government (Obama's presidency to be more specific) made it clear that it will only act after a clear mandate is given. Less than 50% of votes is not a clear mandate.--Coquidragon (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is evident that the results can be interpreted in both ways. I propose that both ways are presented since several articles discuss both, for example this one. In addition, the PNP says statehood won, while the PPD says it did not because it got less than the 50%. It seems like a flaw in the way it was designed. --Ljvillanueva (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

61 % or almost 2/3 of the vote, it is a clear mandate in any Democracy! Say the contrary is not respect the Democracy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss politics, but the article. Evidently the results are controversial. This should be discussed in the article.--Ljvillanueva (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)