New Zealand had the wisdom of publishing percentages both with and without informal votes, and so do I on my website, where you can find the percentage distributions of this year’s plebiscite with and without 499,275 blank and unadjudicated ballots.

Oh, and one more thing: our Elections Commission takes into account blank and unadjudicated ballots when calculating vote percentages for every election race, just as they have been doing for the past nineteen years – everything except for the plebiscite vote, that is…

Interestingly, while the Governor-elect and Resident Commissioner are both different parties in PR politics, they are also both Democrats and could quite possibly work together if PR becomes a state and the liberals in PR get over personal animosities. It’s quite possible that PR politics becomes Republican vs. Democrat if it becomes a state.

Whether PR would be a consistent vote for the Democrats is also anyone’s guess. Puerto Ricans in the state are Democrats, but they tend to be significantly more social liberal than those on the island. Of course, PR would be the poorest state and most Puerto Ricans would oppose cuts to federal spending.

If they do get electoral votes (either as a state or through a constitutional amendment), there’s also nothing that says they have to use the winner-take-all model. They could use the congressional district model, electoral district model, or even divide the votes proportionally.

The outgoing Governor is a Republican (he was the rep in Congress) while the Secretary of State is a Democrat and was P.R. campaign manager for Hillary Clinton in ’08

Additionally, the link by Navarro-Rivera is inaccurate: “enhanced commonwealth,” at least in the way that phrase is usually used in the status debate, was not one of the options in the referendum; the third option was free association (that is, a status more-or-less similar to the status of Palau or the other former Pacific Trust Territories with Compacts of Free Association with the US). While ” “enhanced commonwealth,” in which the sovereignty of the island will belong to the people of Puerto Rico rather than to the U.S. Congress” might also technically be accurate, it’s also misleading, though that’s more due to the fault of the phrasing on the ballot and some translation that is unclear than by any fault of Mr. Navarro-Rivera. “Estado Libre Asociado” is the official Spanish translation of Commonwealth, and is understood as such in Puerto Rican Spanish, but in the context of the ballot, it’s referring to Free Association. As the CRS report explains, “The “sovereign free associated state” option is not a term of art historically associated with the status issue. The term resembles language used to describe “freely associated” states, such as the relationship the United States maintains with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. As in those areas, the “free associated” option for Puerto Rico would entail, the ballot instructions suggest, independence but ongoing, negotiated ties with the United States.”

The expanded commonwealth option is generally seen as unconstitutional. Congress could delegate more powers to Puerto Rico, but cannot permanently give these powers to them or recognize joint sovereignty or the sole sovereignty of the Puerto Rican people as a later Congress could take them away unilaterally under the Territorial Clause. A constitutional amendment or convincing judges the past precedents were invalid would be needed to avoid this. However, some claim that the “commonwealth” status of Puerto Rico means it is not a territory under the territory clause but a sui generis status based on a mutual compact between Congress and the people of PR that cannot unilaterally be taken away.

Suaprazzodi, the Commonwealth/ELA distinction has been around for over 60 years. The only conflict is when trying to distinguish between a possession of the US with autonomous government (what Puerto Rico is right now) and an independent state which has signed a Treat of Free Association. The problem with Congress granting greater autonomy short of full independence or equal statehood is that a later Congress can unilaterally take that autonomy away.

Some status options I’ve not heard proposed that I think ought to be considered are a condominium held jointly between the USA and a sovereign Puerto Rico, which could theoretically be a way to enact joint sovereignty without giving up formal US possession of the island (sort of halfway between the status quo and freely associated state, or that Puerto Ricans be recognized as an indigenous tribe, and a government established on the Island with tribal sovereignty. I also think the idea of an independent state, but with the President of the United States as a figurehead head of state, represented in Puerto Rico by an appointed and powerless High Commissioner or by the elected governor, could also work, sort of similar to the way Andorra works and the way the British Commonwealth realms operate (though that would raise even more difficult. Considering that even “enhanced commonwealth” and “freely associated state” are new entries into the discussion, and that “enhanced commonwealth” hasn’t even made it onto the ballot, it’s not likely these ideas pick up much traction.

Hawaii was originally expected to be a Republican state, and Alaska a Democratic one, which is why they were admitted about the same time.

Territories do have representation in the US Congress, they each elect one delegate, regardless of population, to the House of Representatives, who doesn’t have a vote on the final passage of legislation. This arrangement has been in place since the early days of the republic.

Some seem to be thinking otherwise… and who am I to mess with Texas?!

The U.S Constitution should be amended to guarantee territories at least the same representation as states, but only one Senate seat, as they are not states, but think of Switzerland which gives half cantons only one seat, and canton two seats. It’s unfair that the territories have no representation in Congress, Senate, and no vote in the electoral college.

Some Republicans would probably be oppose to Puerto Rican statehood as they fear it would always vote Democrat. I don’t that would be likely, most likely Puerto Rico would be a swing state considering that Governor elections are so close.

What about using the New Zealand procedure here? This referendum that just happened would be treated as an advisory vote, to decide whether to propose a change in status. Since “statehood” was selected as the plurality preference, the P.R. government spends the next four years coming up with a proposal for statehood, which is then subject to a straight Yes/No vote.

The bottom line is that 46% of those voting favor the current Commonwealth option. I’m not sure how many of the 46% boycotted the second question (the best tactic in this situation if you were a pro-commonwealth voter would be to vote “status quo” on the first quesiton, and “enhanced commonwealth” on the second, but I would expect very few voters to get that). Given that a portion of the 54% wanting change are almost certainly pro-independence supporters, I’m pretty sure that statehood does not have a majority.

The obvious way to do this would be a referendum using AV to sort between the statehood, independence, and one or two commonwealth options. If not that, separate the questions into “do you want statehood yes or no” and “do you want independence yes or no” with commonwealth the default if majorities vote no on the other two questions.