• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Americans in the US territories not being permitted to vote for POTUS

Americans in the US territories not being permitted to vote for POTUS

  • Honestly, my answer would be based on how it benefits my party/political outcomes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Leave it the way it is. No vote for POTUS in the territories.

    Votes: 6 30.0%

  • Let the territories form their own winner takes all EC delegation

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • Let each territory be assigned by lottery a state with which they vote each Presidential election

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • End the Electoral College. Direct vote for President by all citizens regardless of where they live

    Votes: 12 60.0%
  • Total voters
    20
joG said:
Why can't they vote like any expat?
Click to expand...

First, they're living inside or US jurisdiction; on US soil. Secondly, many, in particular those who were born there, have never lived in one of the 50 states.

Someone said earlier that Americans living overseas cannot vote for President until they move back. I have not been able to verify that claim.

Relevance to Puerto Rico voting rights

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act has also been challenged in federal court by U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs in the case of Igartua de la Rosa v. United States claimed that the Act is unconstitutional because it allows U.S. citizens who move abroad to vote in federal elections, but not if they relocate to Puerto Rico. The challenge was dismissed by the courts.[6] However, in his dissent, Judge Juan R. Torruella argued that the United States Constitution neither denies citizens of Puerto Rico the right to vote for members of the United States House of Representatives nor imposes a limitation on the federal government's authority to extend federal voting rights to territorial residents under other constitutional powers.[7]

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Smeagol said:
First, they're living inside or US jurisdiction; on US soil. Secondly, many, in particular those who were born there, have never lived in one of the 50 states.

Someone said earlier that Americans living overseas cannot vote for President until they move back. I have not been able to verify that. Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

citizens living overseas can vote.

And you are right. US citizens should be able to vote.
 
joG said:
citizens living overseas can vote.

And you are right. US citizens should be able to vote.
Click to expand...

It would be nice but a US citizen living in Vietnam can vote for President by mail but a US citizen living in the US Virgin Islands whose airports until recently were named after Founding Father Alexander Hamilton and President Harry Truman cannot for for President (with the exception of the primaries.)
 
whysoserious said:
I'm not sure why this is a pro (nor did you reply to me and I don't really appreciate being given homework either):

"contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system"

But, I can see some value in this attribute:

"contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president"

However, aren't electorates still greatly based off of population? Isn't the use of electorates really having the opposite effect? In that I mean, there is a ridiculous two-party system, where a large percentage of states are always going to go one way or another. That means, even if another candidate runs a great campaign, gets a lot of swing voters, and even converts a few closer to center from the other party, he/she still is getting almost no votes from those states.

If Jesus came back right now, ran as a liberal, he could get 49% of the vote in Mississippi (which would be a miracle for a liberal), and still get no electoral votes for Mississippi. And that would work the opposite, obviously, for a conservative and California, say.
Click to expand...

Doing away with the EC might even be great for the Republicans is seems to me, yet I'm against it because no one has shown any wisdom against it. All people do is say they hate and throw bumper sticker talking points out there. Well I'm sorry to say that that won't even put a dent in the solid intellectually foundations of the Founders. You want to undo something in the Constitution, you better damn well have a thorough logical argument against it, in my world.
 
Smeagol said:
We've been having a spirited discussion on Americans living in the US territories barred from voting in presidential elections. As an FYI, they do vote in the primaries.

By way of background, the constitution gives the power to elect the potus via the electoral college to the states, very likely do to the thinking that average Americans were too ill-informed to cast an informed ballot for such an important position. With advances in mass news media, over time every state transitioned from having the state legislatures pick their electoral college delegates to holding general elections in each state. Since the constitution does not specify how each state should select their electoral college delegates, there was no need to amend the constitution.

Inadvertently left out of the process were residents of Washington, DC and the US territories since they do not live in a state. It wasn't until 1961 that Washingtonians finally got to vote for president. This anomaly does not apply to Americans born in the US territories, only Americans who live in the US territories. If a Puerto Rican moves to Orlando, he instantly becomes eligible to vote in Florida elections. However, if a Texan moves to Puerto Rico he instantly loses his right to vote in presidential elections but votes instead for the mayor of San Juan, governor of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico delegate to Congress in Washington and the Puerto Rico legislature. An even greater anomaly is if a New Yorker moves to Pakistan, he gets to vote for President of the United States by mail. Only Americans living in the US territories are banned from voting for president.

In your view, what is the best way to address this oddity?
Click to expand...

Are you sure you have this right? I know many ex-pats, U.S. citizens who live in Thailand, one in Laos and a couple more in Vietnam, yet they get to vote. Absentee, but they get to vote. I am sure regardless of where I moved to, PR, VI, Guam, it would be no different that living in Thailand.
 
Smeagol said:
We've been having a spirited discussion on Americans living in the US territories barred from voting in presidential elections. As an FYI, they do vote in the primaries.

By way of background, the constitution gives the power to elect the potus via the electoral college to the states, very likely do to the thinking that average Americans were too ill-informed to cast an informed ballot for such an important position. With advances in mass news media, over time every state transitioned from having the state legislatures pick their electoral college delegates to holding general elections in each state. Since the constitution does not specify how each state should select their electoral college delegates, there was no need to amend the constitution.

Inadvertently left out of the process were residents of Washington, DC and the US territories since they do not live in a state. It wasn't until 1961 that Washingtonians finally got to vote for president. This anomaly does not apply to Americans born in the US territories, only Americans who live in the US territories. If a Puerto Rican moves to Orlando, he instantly becomes eligible to vote in Florida elections. However, if a Texan moves to Puerto Rico he instantly loses his right to vote in presidential elections but votes instead for the mayor of San Juan, governor of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico delegate to Congress in Washington and the Puerto Rico legislature. An even greater anomaly is if a New Yorker moves to Pakistan, he gets to vote for President of the United States by mail. Only Americans living in the US territories are banned from voting for president.

In your view, what is the best way to address this oddity?
Click to expand...
With the exception of DC's history, I had never thought about this one way or another. Interesting thread topic.

To be fair historically, when the nation was founded we didn't have territories. But, that doesn't mean it couldn't have been addressed since then. I believe that every citizen should have the right to vote in a Presidential election, and I've never been a fan of the Electoral College, so I guess that's my answer.
 
American said:
Maybe because you don't understand it. Maybe you didn't realize that the federal govt was never set up to govern YOU, but to govern the states. Not only have we bastardized the education of our citizenry in to believing popular vote is the cure to all election evils, but they don't even understand the purpose of the union to begin with. The states existed before the union, not the union before the states. The two houses in Congress represent the states, that's why the representatives are divided up by states. Furthermore it was never intended that you vote DIRECTLY for the President. The Founders knew exactly what they were trying to do, it wasn't random.
Click to expand...
Be that as it may, it has evolved far from that.
 
Option 5 is the only reasonable answer, IMO. The electoral college should be abolished and the people of the United States should have a say in who governs them. That being said, we shouldn't even have territories in the first place. Each territory should vote on statehood or independence.
 
American said:
Doing away with the EC might even be great for the Republicans is seems to me, yet I'm against it because no one has shown any wisdom against it. All people do is say they hate and throw bumper sticker talking points out there. Well I'm sorry to say that that won't even put a dent in the solid intellectually foundations of the Founders. You want to undo something in the Constitution, you better damn well have a thorough logical argument against it, in my world.
Click to expand...

Do you really think a two-party system is the best system?
 
whysoserious said:
Do you really think a two-party system is the best system?
Click to expand...
You weren't asking me, but I don't think the 2 party system is bad, per se. I think where we continually fall off the boat is in insisting on re-electing the same individuals time after time after time when we know we don't like them.
 
whysoserious said:
Do you really think a two-party system is the best system?
Click to expand...

That is not sufficient reason for eliminating the EC. You're going to have to do better than that.
 
Get rid of the electoral college, let all US citizens vote in presidential elections.
 
TeleKat said:
Get rid of the electoral college, let all US citizens vote in presidential elections.
Click to expand...

The 12 people living in the Midwest object to that. We can't have those 12 people annoyed.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Option 5 is the only reasonable answer, IMO. The electoral college should be abolished and the people of the United States should have a say in who governs them. That being said, we shouldn't even have territories in the first place. Each territory should vote on statehood or independence.
Click to expand...

I like 3, 4 and 5 in that order from least to best.

Having territories are deeply entrenched in US history but because of their nature, it takes time for the territories to develop economically, politically and in other areas enough to become states. The Louisiana territory wasn't ready to become a state(s) in 1803 but in time it was. Hawaii was a US territory when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor but in time they were ready for statehood, 1959. As a FYI, most US territories eventually become states. I'm only aware of two that preferred not to; Cuba and the Philippines. Interestingly, they probably regretted it considering both ended up with dictators. I just remembered Liberia but I don't think they were offered the option of becoming a state.
 
Perotista said:
Are you sure you have this right? I know many ex-pats, U.S. citizens who live in Thailand, one in Laos and a couple more in Vietnam, yet they get to vote. Absentee, but they get to vote. I am sure regardless of where I moved to, PR, VI, Guam, it would be no different that living in Thailand.
Click to expand...

I'm sure of it. The exception would be if you moved to one of the territories and choose to not to become a legal resident and vote absentee back in the states. This would be very difficult to do over the long term because you could not get a local driver's license. That would affect your ability to get auto insurance, enroll your kids in school and your ability work. I imagine you could do it but would need to be well off enough to maintain two residences; one in the states and another in the territory. However, even if you could pull it off, the American citizens born there and have lived there all their lives would have no stateside address from which they could vote absentee. They have to sign up for selective service, maybe get drafted into the US military but can't vote for president.
 
Perotista said:
Are you sure you have this right? I know many ex-pats, U.S. citizens who live in Thailand, one in Laos and a couple more in Vietnam, yet they get to vote. Absentee, but they get to vote. I am sure regardless of where I moved to, PR, VI, Guam, it would be no different that living in Thailand.
Click to expand...

This month, as President Obama prepares once again to address the nation, nearly 600 soldiers from Guam are returning home after a nine-month deployment in Afghanistan. While these patriotic Americans answered the call to defend democracy overseas, they are denied democracy at home. When the 2016 General Election rolls around, they will be unable to vote for President and will only elect a non-voting Delegate to Congress.

During their first month of deployment in Afghanistan, two Guam soldiers, Spc. Dwayne Flores, 22, and Sgt. Eugene Aguon, were killed by a car bomb. According to statistics from the Washington Post's "Faces of the Fallen," Guam's casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan have been 450 percent above the national average.



Fighting for Democracy, But Can't Vote for President*|*Neil Weare

As a btw, Delegates to Congress from Washington, DC and the US territories can serve on committees, preside over committees, vote in committee, write and introduce legislation and have all the staffing, salary and perks of any member or congress. In fact, my sources tell me the delegate to congress from the Virgin Islands, who is also a medical doctor was the key person in the house who got Obamacare fine tuned and passed. However, they are excluded from voting in final votes that pass laws in the full house. And no US senators, which nobody is asking for without statehood.
 
Last edited:
American said:
That is not sufficient reason for eliminating the EC. You're going to have to do better than that.
Click to expand...

It wasn't for eliminating the EC, it was just a question in relation to the topic. And I'm still not sure the EC really does a good job in making sure that candidates have wide-ranging support.
 
Maybe all the non-voting territories can be banded together with it's own set of collective Electoral votes. Kind of like a new state, if you will.

Just thinking out loud.
 
radcen said:
Maybe all the non-voting territories can be banded together with it's own set of collective Electoral votes. Kind of like a new state, if you will.

Just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...


That was one of my options; 3 on the poll. The problem is Puerto Rico with its population of 3.6 million would essentially dominate the smaller territories of Guam, the USVI and American Samoa with a remaining combined population of 325,000. However, my educated guess is Puerto Rico with be a state soon and if not, they all will likely vote pretty much alike anyway. Regardless, there is no perfect solution and anything IMHO is better than nothing.

I like option 4 because in addition to giving those in the territories the presidential vote, it reminds us in an emphatic way that the territories are in fact part of the country and will help forge more unity and friendship.

I think we'll get to option 5 as a country eventually. We would need to concurrently create a runoff system for it to work, IMHO. I also think we need to randomize the primary election dates.
 
Smeagol said:
This month, as President Obama prepares once again to address the nation, nearly 600 soldiers from Guam are returning home after a nine-month deployment in Afghanistan. While these patriotic Americans answered the call to defend democracy overseas, they are denied democracy at home. When the 2016 General Election rolls around, they will be unable to vote for President and will only elect a non-voting Delegate to Congress.

During their first month of deployment in Afghanistan, two Guam soldiers, Spc. Dwayne Flores, 22, and Sgt. Eugene Aguon, were killed by a car bomb. According to statistics from the Washington Post's "Faces of the Fallen," Guam's casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan have been 450 percent above the national average.



Fighting for Democracy, But Can't Vote for President*|*Neil Weare

As a btw, Delegates to Congress from Washington, DC and the US territories can serve on committees, preside over committees, vote in committee, write and introduce legislation and have all the staffing, salary and perks of any member or congress. In fact, my sources tell me the delegate to congress from the Virgin Islands, who is also a medical doctor was the key person in the house who got Obamacare fine tuned and passed. However, they are excluded from voting in final votes that pass laws in the full house. And no US senators, which nobody is asking for without statehood.
Click to expand...

Guam's military casualty rate is higher because Guam's military service rate is higher (#1 in the US). Guam is an island that relies heavily upon imports which are far cheaper when heavily subsudized by the military. The PX/commissary system accounts for a huge reduction in the cost of living on Guam. When I lived in Guam (1982-1985) nearly every family had a military service member thereby making their dependents eligible for those PX/commissary privileges.


Total Military Recruits: Army, Navy, Air Force (per capita) statistics - States Compared - StateMaster

http://www.militaryinstallations.do...NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:3025,INSTALLATION
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
It wasn't for eliminating the EC, it was just a question in relation to the topic. And I'm still not sure the EC really does a good job in making sure that candidates have wide-ranging support.
Click to expand...

Well I refer you back to my link, which I thought gave reasoned opinions. If I choose to trust the wisdom of the Founders over the whims of current politicians and pundits (who have yet to give a reasoned argument beyond we like popular vote or the founders didn't know our times), well I'm just damn sorry but that's not good enough for me to change the status quo. That's why I'm a conservative, I don't do change just because it feels good or seems more fair. One thing I've learn in 55 years is that things aren't always what they seem or feel.
 
Smeagol said:
That was one of my options; 3 on the poll. The problem is Puerto Rico with its population of 3.6 million would essentially dominate the smaller territories of Guam, the USVI and American Samoa with a remaining combined population of 325,000. However, my educated guess is Puerto Rico with be a state soon and if not, they all will likely vote pretty much alike anyway. Regardless, there is no perfect solution and anything IMHO is better than nothing.

I like option 4 because in addition to giving those in the territories the presidential vote, it reminds us in an emphatic way that the territories are in fact part of the country and will help forge more unity and friendship.

I think we'll get to option 5 as a country eventually. We would need to concurrently create a runoff system for it to work, IMHO. I also think we need to randomize the primary election dates.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I pretty much stopped reading polls since they've been spammed so much.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Guam's military casualty rate is higher because Guam's military service rate is higher (#1 in the US). Guam is an island that relies heavily upon imports which are far cheaper when heavily subsudized by the military. The PX/commissary system accounts for a huge reduction in the cost of living on Guam. When I lived in Guam (1982-1985) nearly every family had a military service member thereby making their dependents eligible for those PX/commissary privileges.


Total Military Recruits: Army, Navy, Air Force (per capita) statistics - States Compared - StateMaster

MilitaryINSTALLATIONS - U.S. Department of Defense
Click to expand...

So a lot of people join the National Guard in part to be able to shop at the on-base grocery store at half the price of the civilian stores. Interesting.
 
Smeagol said:
So a lot of people join the National Guard in part to be able to shop at the on-base grocery store at half the price of the civilian stores. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Yep, it is not that folks from Guam are any more patriotic or care about much other than local politics. Knowing what is required to get your cost of living lower is the primary factor in deciding to join the military in Guam, next is the unemployment rate.
 
American said:
Well I refer you back to my link, which I thought gave reasoned opinions. If I choose to trust the wisdom of the Founders over the whims of current politicians and pundits (who have yet to give a reasoned argument beyond we like popular vote or the founders didn't know our times), well I'm just damn sorry but that's not good enough for me to change the status quo. That's why I'm a conservative, I don't do change just because it feels good or seems more fair. One thing I've learn in 55 years is that things aren't always what they seem or feel.
Click to expand...

If you agree with the link, then you should be able to argue the points inside effectively. If you don't feel like doing that, ok fine, but I don't know how you can take much of a stand.

As far as I can recall, the FF weren't necessarily big on political parties, so I don't think you are necessarily sided with the FF on that issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom