• 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!

The 51st State: Puerto Rico

Are you OK with Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state of the United States?


  • Total voters
    48
No having 51 stars would totally mess up our balanced flag so that idea is out of the question.

But seriously I have a problem not with with peurto Ricans buut heir language. If we let PR become a state we will become a bi-lingual country and that would be wrong. Let them become part of Canada since Canada is already messed up with mullti lingualism.
 
No having 51 stars would totally mess up our balanced flag so that idea is out of the question.

But seriously I have a problem not with with peurto Ricans buut heir language. If we let PR become a state we will become a bi-lingual country and that would be wrong. Let them become part of Canada since Canada is already messed up with mullti lingualism.

thats a non issue really, as america doesn't have an official federal-level language
 
So you support "Downsize California Now"? They want a ballot initiative for a two-state solution. According to their plans, 13 counties on the coast, ranging from Los Angeles to Marin, just north of San Francisco, would be split off and be named Coastal California, West California or whatever they please.

I would support that. It is absurdly ridiculous that a state like South Dakota with 1/30th the population of California should have the same influence as us.

Why is a person in Wyomings voice entitled to 30 times more weight than a person in California?
 
Are you OK with Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state of the United States?

Why or why not?

I voted other because I am OK with whatever the people of Puerto Rico decide.
 
When else has it happened?

Every single election cycle.

Whenever someone votes for the non winning side they end up being not represented.
Now we can pretend that they are but the person representing them does most or all things that goes against their wishes/beliefs.

So in reality, they aren't being represented.
 
Every single election cycle.

Whenever someone votes for the non winning side they end up being not represented.
Now we can pretend that they are but the person representing them does most or all things that goes against their wishes/beliefs.

So in reality, they aren't being represented.

I have to agree, I think proportional representation would help solve this problem.
 
Every single election cycle.

Whenever someone votes for the non winning side they end up being not represented.
Now we can pretend that they are but the person representing them does most or all things that goes against their wishes/beliefs.

So in reality, they aren't being represented.

The area is still without regional congressional representation.
 
That would set a precedent.

As long as they aren't a state it wouldn't. :2razz:

But seriously, things like this bother me because of the potential to further upset our fiscal problems we are facing in both the short and long term.

I think a move like this would be a large destabilizer in a time when we need reductions in spending and increases in tax revenues.
 
Every single election cycle.

Whenever someone votes for the non winning side they end up being not represented.
Now we can pretend that they are but the person representing them does most or all things that goes against their wishes/beliefs.

So in reality, they aren't being represented.

Give me a system that would represent everyone as you define it.
 
Community service for voting privileges.
Allows people who can't afford to pay taxes to contribute.

How would that solve the problem, exactly? We're referring to representation, not who votes.

As an aside, I heavily disagree with voting being a privilege. It is the most fundamental right in a republic.
 
How would that solve the problem, exactly? We're referring to representation, not who votes.

I don't think everyone deserves to be represented.
Citizenship should be a privilege based on contributing to the community, not taking away from it.

As an aside, I heavily disagree with voting being a privilege. It is the most fundamental right in a republic.

I think that is an extremist position to hold.
 
I don't think everyone deserves to be represented. Citizenship should be a privilege based on contributing to the community, not taking away from it.
Citizenship is a basic right for the populace. It's that right that separates us from a oligarchic form of government. If people don't vote, the government doesn't belong to them, and the government should belong to everyone.

I think that is an extremist position to hold.

Why don't you think it is a right?
 
Citizenship is a basic right for the populace. It's that right that separates us from a oligarchic form of government. If people don't vote, the government doesn't belong to them, and the government should belong to everyone.

I think citizenship should be two tiered.
We do it with people convicted of crimes and I think we should extend it to those who contribute nothing.

Full citizenship should be based on monthly participation in community service.
Picking up trash off of the highway, cleaning government buildings, etc.
I make no distinction about who does it both rich and poor.

If you choose not to, you don't get to vote or lobby government; you only get the basic protections.

Why don't you think it is a right?

It creates class divisions based on income and property.
It's being used as a dividing tool, instead of a tool of inclusive participation and sustainable community growth.

Plus it's grossly unethical for people to use government to take from others.
Again this applies to both rich and poor because they both do it and it implies that one owns it more than the other.
 
I think citizenship should be two tiered.
We do it with people convicted of crimes and I think we should extend it to those who contribute nothing.
I personally think we should let felons who did their time vote, it'll help give them more investment in the system.

Full citizenship should be based on monthly participation in community service.
Picking up trash off of the highway, cleaning government buildings, etc.
I make no distinction about who does it both rich and poor.
What will this really change? I fail to see the point of this. Not to mention, not everyone is able to donate time to community service. Some people don't have the health to really do much outside of the house. Others just don't have time. There's been times when I've been working two jobs and going to school. The last thing I'd have time to do is pick up trash. I still knew more about the issues than the general populace though.

Furthermore, the amount of fraud in this would be overwhelming. It's enough of an issue making sure kids actually did their community service for high school. Monthly service so you can vote every two years? It'd take an entire army just to keep that running smoothly.

If you choose not to, you don't get to vote or lobby government; you only get the basic protections.
What are they going to do? Bar you from writing letters to your congressman?

It creates class divisions based on income and property.
How does full franchise do this?

It's being used as a dividing tool, instead of a tool of inclusive participation and sustainable community growth.
Limiting the people who can vote will only make it more divisive. If you're trying to sustain community growth, there's much better ways to do it.

Plus it's grossly unethical for people to use government to take from others.
Again this applies to both rich and poor because they both do it and it implies that one owns it more than the other.
Everyone has a say in the government, so everyone can have their voices heard on any new taxes or programs. Limiting voting will only make it worse.

You also haven't explained how any of this makes it a privilege and not a right. You've just listed some gripes about the system, without posting anything of philosophical merit.
 
I personally think we should let felons who did their time vote, it'll help give them more investment in the system.

I do too but it's not politically popular and they have their rights denied because of the full franchise and general ignorance of the people.

What will this really change? I fail to see the point of this. Not to mention, not everyone is able to donate time to community service. Some people don't have the health to really do much outside of the house. Others just don't have time. There's been times when I've been working two jobs and going to school. The last thing I'd have time to do is pick up trash. I still knew more about the issues than the general populace though.

I hate to say it but, a few here and there, that can't find the time will be left out.
The world isn't perfect.

Furthermore, the amount of fraud in this would be overwhelming. It's enough of an issue making sure kids actually did their community service for high school. Monthly service so you can vote every two years? It'd take an entire army just to keep that running smoothly.

If it were administered by a county or city it wouldn't be difficult to operate.
They do it now with contract labor and state employees.


What are they going to do? Bar you from writing letters to your congressman?

No but they don't have to pay any attention to them.

How does full franchise do this?

It creates an incentive to pit income class against income class, business against the people.

Limiting the people who can vote will only make it more divisive. If you're trying to sustain community growth, there's much better ways to do it.

I don't see it that way.
If someone is to lazy to contribute to the community, they don't really have much of an excuse.
This isn't a liberal vs conservative thing, as both sides do community service projects but not enough of either really help.

Everyone has a say in the government, so everyone can have their voices heard on any new taxes or programs. Limiting voting will only make it worse.

That really isn't true.
Communists, True Socialists, Green Party Types and Libertarians very rarely get a voice.
They are drowned out by Democrats and Republicans which are mostly corporatists.

You also haven't explained how any of this makes it a privilege and not a right. You've just listed some gripes about the system, without posting anything of philosophical merit.

I don't think it should be a right, I think it should be earned so it can be exercised wisely.

Do you earn a paycheck if you don't show up to work? No.
Why should people be able to vote without earning it?
They haven't done anything that shows their opinion is worth listening to.

I think that is why voting was limited(originally) on purpose.
 
Last edited:
Lots o' stuff

Quick side comment here, but Harry, have you read any Robert Heinlein books? Starship troopers (the book is better than the movie) has a system similar to this, except it is based on military service. You might enjoy it.
 
Quick side comment here, but Harry, have you read any Robert Heinlein books? Starship troopers (the book is better than the movie) has a system similar to this, except it is based on military service. You might enjoy it.

I like the movie. :2razz:

Heinlein is an interesting character, from what I understand he was a sort of Libertarian Socialist.
I have similar leanings although not entirely the same.

I disagree with military service being a requirement, it could create an ultra nationalist country.
 
heres your 51st state- canada, britain, israel, australia, japan
 
Back
Top Bottom