No representation

[xenon]

@Jolly said in No representation:

They have representation. They have no vote.

This gets theoretical. Is it really representation if the people have no vote or recourse? (And who represents them?)

[jon-nyc]

We had territories before we had the constitution and during its ratification (and ever since). So they aren't outside of the constitutional purview.

[jon-nyc]

The Congress of Confederation (pre-dating the constitution) organized the Northwest territory (OH and environs) which had been ceded to the US from Britain by the treaty of Paris.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

[xenon]

@jon-nyc have been reading here a bit this morning as well.

Seems like a key provision here is the land ordinance of 1784 (linked in the wiki above as well):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1784

Saying that all of these territories are temporary and would eventually be turned into a state.

[jon-nyc]

Yeah, that was certainly the intention for those original territories and the Louisiana Purchase, and the territory gained from Mexico.

It was only in the Spanish American war that we gained territories that people then had no intention of turning into a state. It was very controversial, a prominent 'Anti-Imperialist League' was formed over it.

[jon-nyc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League

Check out the prominent member list.

[bachophile]

Did u know that the District of Columbia is a member of the unrpresented nations and peoples organization?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization?wprov=sfsi1

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in No representation:

Wrong null hypothesis. The union was a compact among states.

FWIW Puerto Rico has voted against statehood a number of times.

If they had voted for statehood, I think it very probable they would have been the 51st.

[George K]

@Jolly said in No representation:

@jon-nyc said in No representation:

Wrong null hypothesis. The union was a compact among states.

FWIW Puerto Rico has voted against statehood a number of times.

If they had voted for statehood, I think it very probable they would have been the 51st.

Too lazy to look it up - why did they not vote for statehood?

Presumably the benefits of statehood aren't worth it. Wonder what those are?

[Copper]

@George-K said in No representation:

Presumably the benefits of statehood aren't worth it. Wonder what those are?

A new language?

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in No representation:

Too lazy to look it up - why did they not vote for statehood?

Presumably the benefits of statehood aren't worth it. Wonder what those are?

IIRC it was always a three way choice, statehood, independence, or status quo. Status quo always won. They used to have a special economic deal that encouraged businesses to locate there. So there was a lot of economic interest in status quo. People liked their US passports too and always had the option to go to the mainland.

That’s what most pissed me off about Obama’s pardon of Oscar Lopez Rivera and how that was played in the press. They (The press) acted like he was this freedom fighter opposing American oppression when in reality he tried to achieve through violence what Puerto Rican voters roundly rejected multiple times at the ballot box.

[Larry]

Don't forget about Guam, the Marianna Island, American Samoa, etc.

[jon-nyc]

I think that was all Spanish empire bits we picked up in 1898

The anti-imperialist league was right.

[LuFins Dad]

@bachophile said in No representation:

Did u know that the District of Columbia is a member of the unrpresented nations and peoples organization?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization?wprov=sfsi1

And they get more practical representation than any city in the world.