Puerto Rico statehood could give the U.S. more trouble than anything else

Tomorrow, Puerto Ricans will go to the polls to vote on whether Puerto Rico should continue with an undemocratic status quo regarding Puerto Rico’s political status, become a sovereign country independent from the United States, or become a U.S. state. While statehood is likely to get the most votes by far, Puerto Rican statehood would cause the U.S. more trouble than anything, and it has absolutely nothing to do with race or language.

Long story short, the Puerto Rican independence movement isn’t going to go away, even if Puerto Ricans choose statehood in a landslide. I worry that Puerto Rico, if it were to become a state, would become the U.S.’s version of Quebec politically. Quebec is a Canadian province with a significant independence movement, with a pro-Quebec independence party, often playing a potential spoiler role in Canadian parliamentary elections (and, for a period in the mid-1990’s, was the official opposition party in the Canadian House of Commons). If Puerto Rico were to become a U.S. state, it would be apportioned, if I’m not mistaken, 5 U.S. House seats (and, because Puerto Rico were to be able to vote in U.S. presidential elections if it were to become a state, 7 electoral college votes), although I’m not sure of the actual apportionment math. However, the pro-independence movement in Puerto Rico would likely run their own candidate in the first U.S. presidential election following statehood, with the pro-independence candidate receiving enough votes that would otherwise go to the Democratic presidential candidate to potentially allow President Donald Trump, whose approval rating in Puerto Rico is probably extremely low, to win Puerto Rico’s electoral votes with a small plurality of the Puerto Rican popular vote, and, in a close election, Puerto Rico’s electoral votes could decide the entire presidential election. It would be an embarrassment to America for a separatist movement to potentially wield the balance of power in a U.S. presidential election.

While Puerto Ricans will vote on their political future tomorrow, the U.S. Congress will have the final say on any actual measure to grant Puerto Rico either statehood or independence. While the current status quo in Puerto Rico is completely unacceptable, Puerto Rican statehood is not worth the risk of a second Trump term in the White House. It would be best if Congress passed a Puerto Rican independence bill and granted Puerto Rico full independence from the United States, regardless of the outcome of the Puerto Rican referendum tomorrow, and I support all non-violent efforts with the ultimate goal of full independence for the Puerto Rican people.

Advertisement

Why I’m alarmed that Jill Stein requested the Wisconsin U.S. presidential race recount

Failed presidential candidates Jill Stein and Rocky De La Fuente have officially requested a recount in the presidential race in the state of Wisconsin, which has 10 electoral votes.

While Stein and De La Fuente have the legal right in Wisconsin to request a recount, I’m really worried that Democrats could lose a ton of voters to Stein’s Green Party over this.

Currently, the Democratic Party is in what is perhaps its weakest state in modern American history, having just lost control of the White House to a fringe-right Republican, handing complete control of every major lever of power at the federal level (the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court) to a far-right Republican Party.

The fact that Stein, not Hillary Clinton, is the one leading the charge for a recount in Wisconsin, and the fact that Stein has raised a ton of money for her recount fund, is, in a way, downright alarming to me. You have to remember that the Democratic Party is not in anything resembling a strong position right now, the current Democratic Party establishment is completely untrusted by many left-wing Democratic voters, and many left-wing voters are going to perceive the Green Party, a minor left-wing political party, as the party of election integrity.

The political structure in this country incentives a strong two-party system, which is what we have in this country. One thing that I like to say about the American political system and electorate is that we have a strong two-party system, but we don’t have a strong two-party electorate. By that, I mean that, while there are enough hyperpartisan voters for one of the major political parties in this country to keep the two-party system going, there are plenty of voters who don’t like the two-party system for whatever reason(s). I consider myself to be part of the anti-establishment left, but I realize that the structure of the electoral system in this county incentives a two-party system, so I vote for Democratic nominees in the general election, even though Democrats typically don’t nominate candidates who are as left-wing as I am.

If the Green Party can gain enough of a political foothold in this country to get several percent of the vote nationally and in most states on a regular basis, then the Republicans are going to have complete control of this country at the federal level for a generation or two, if not even longer, even if they only get 45% or so of the popular vote nationally. The fact that Stein has been able to raise millions of dollars for a recount fund tells me that scenario is certainly possible going forward, and that frightens me.

How a “write-in Bernie” movement could hand the GOP the election

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The following blog posts contains hypothetical electoral college maps that I created at the 270ToWin website. Since, at the time I wrote the initial draft of this blog post, Donald Trump had not yet clinched the Republican presidential nomination, the label for the Republican candidate on the electoral college maps simply reads “Republican” instead of “Trump”. The label for the Democratic candidate on the electoral college maps reads “Clinton”, because the initial draft of the blog post was written as a hypothetical scenario of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

---

Let me state clearly that, barring extraordinary circumstances, I will vote for the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential ticket in the general election. Hillary Clinton is expected to be elected Democratic presidential nominee at next month’s Democratic National Convention, and she has not picked a vice-presidential candidate at this time, although her campaign appears to be vetting Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) for the role. In any case, delegates to the DNC have the final say over who the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential tickets are.

However, in eight states (Iowa, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont), voters can write in the name of anyone who is not on the ballot for their state’s presidential or vice-presidential electoral votes. This means that, although I would be strongly opposed to such an effort, voters in the states named above could write-in Bernie Sanders for president in the general election against the Democratic ticket of Hillary and whoever is her running mate. This is despite the fact that Bernie has zero intention of actually running against our party’s ticket.

I’m going to present two scenarios, both of which are at least theoretically possible, now that Hillary is the Democratic nominee, but are highly unlikely.

The first scenario involves Trump and whoever Republicans nominate for Vice President getting an electoral college majority due to a “write-in Bernie” campaign being run completely against Bernie’s will, and this is exactly why I strongly oppose any “write-in Bernie” movement:

The second scenario involves Bernie winning Vermont’s three (3) electoral votes due to enough Vermont voters writing his name in for president against Bernie’s will, and the rest of the states voting in such a manner that Vermont’s electoral votes throws the presidential election into the U.S. House of Representatives:

Since Vermont has a state law that prohibits that state’s electoral college members from voting for anybody other than the candidate or ticket that received the most votes in the presidential election in Vermont, Bernie could not broker the presidential election for one of the major-party nominees in the second scenario, unless Vermont state law were to be changed. As a result, the U.S. House would be asked to elect a new president, and they would likely elect Trump to the White House.

My advice is simple: vote for the Democratic ticket in the general election for president and vice president, and do not write in Bernie’s name for president or any other office.

Mike Bloomberg’s possible presidential run is probably a Clintonite attempt to undermine Bernie

I strongly suspect that the fact that Mike Bloomberg is considering an independent or third-party presidential bid is possibly tied to the fact that Hillary Clinton may be losing her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Maybe it’s just coincidental that Bloomberg has been conducting internal polls and now is formally exploring a presidential bid at the same time that recent opinion polls have shown that Bernie Sanders has a ton of momentum going into next Tuesday’s Iowa Caucuses. However, I strongly suspect that it’s more than a coincidence. For starters, Bloomberg, despite being a former Republican, is ideologically similar to Hillary. Secondly, when it comes to issues like education and finance industry regulation, Bloomberg is anti-public education and pro-Wall Street. Those are where Hillary and Bloomberg line up.

I will not let Hillary Clinton and her ilk extort me into supporting her or any other corporatist political candidate. I am backing Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination, and I will back the Democratic presidential nominee in the general election.