Today's Politics ThreadFollow

Should the United States territories get a vote in Congress?I'm not sure why the Northern Mariana Islands and Micronesia don't rate. Maybe our territorial relationship with them is different and they're not as subject to US federal law.

But, anyway, both Puerto Rico and Guam have had local referendums in the past where they opted not to pursue statehood. As a result, they (along with the other territories) do not pay federal income tax, can not vote in federal elections and do not have a bona fide Representative in the House, nor a Senator. I believe that Puerto Rico has a non-voting member in the House who gets to pipe up with opinions but receives no vote.

So should they get a vote? The Constitution makes no provisions for "unincorporated territories" and says that "states" receive representatives in the House......so it could be argued that even the proposal above would violate the Constitution despite the delegates' votes being toothless.

Or should we even maintain territories? I don't believe that any of the territories feel particularly subjugated (although, I think there's a soverignty movement in Puerto Rico) but that alone doesn't justify keeping them. Should we lump them together into a single "state" with a Representative of the Combined Territories or somesuch? I'm not saying it's a great idea but it might beat four delegates who can only vote when it doesn't matter.

The District of Columbia is another kettle of fish entirely.

Edited, Jan 30th 2007 8:15am by Jophiel

This is the most important and groundbreaking issue in politics today.

Seriously.


yup.

No representation without taxation.

and:



All quoted to be truth, and represent my feelings, and what I think the Constitution would say, were it a living entity.

Not that it's an immediate concern, but US citizens in the territories are, however, eligible for the draft and in the voluntary armed forces and one could argue that they should get a voice in when/where/how the United States executes armed conflict.

People in the United States territories are United States citizens, not foreigners.

Which I suppose is the crux of the "pro-voting" idea. Nothing in the Constitution says that you must "buy" your right to vote by paying federal income tax. Federal income tax and US "unincorporated territories" didn't exist in the fledgling United States. However, one of the basic premises to the revolution was that citizens should have a voice in their government and there's since been a long struggle to grant suffrage to all adult citizens in the US since then. U.S. citizens in Guam or Samoa should have the same access to their government via representatives and federal election votes as those in Virgina or Arizona.

Or so I'd imagine the argument goes. I'm not sure I buy into it.

I would so pwn you in a slingshot and chains fight.

For you I'd break out the , nipple-clips and car battery.

I'm all for giving CITIZENS rights, however, these people are not citizens of the United States of America. They are citizens of what ever nation they were born in. Because we protect them as a territory means nothing in my opinion. Their goverments are sovriegn and their citizens have a say so in their country.

Now, were we to annex them as part of a state, or they become states, then things change, and they should be granted a vote in federal elections, and federal matters. Until then, they're on their own there.

For citizens living abroad, they do have access to their goverment, it may be limited though, and I think that kinda blows for servicemembers, but normal citizens usually choose to go overseas for work, or extended stays, and that's their problem.

Your line of argument is interesting, however, but I fear that it would allow far too many cooks into the kitchen.

Edited, Jan 30th 2007 3:05pm by Metastophicleas

Aside from being wrong, that's a good point. The people of Guam have been US citizens since 1950. Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands for longer.

The people of American Samoa are "U.S. Nationals" instead of citizens so you'd have a point there. The folks of Northern Mariana Islands are US citizens though so I still don't know why Samoa needs a congressional delegate and the NMI's don't. Micronesia is an independant state in "free association" with the US and the rest of our territories are largely uninhabited rocks with airstrips or weather stations.

Beyond taxes and military service, the people of the territories are bound by US federal law and house US federal district courts. Do the democratic* ideals of this nation include binding people by our laws without giving them a voice in deciding those laws?Beats me. I know Puerto Rico has voted against statehood in the past and I believe that Guam has as well. The US government is obligated to make the overtures on a semi-regular basis and, in the Virgin Islands, it's never even shown enough initial support to go on the ballot.

I guess the flip question is "How often are they asked if they'd like to be soverign states?" and I have no idea what the answer is.

*Yes, yes... Constitutional Republic, I know. Same difference for purposes of this argument.

Edited, Jan 30th 2007 1:29pm by Jophiel

Hey, now. Haiti was a nice place before the French came and fucked it up

I vote no!

Oh, wait. . .

What will they use to carry the votes from the islands to the mainland for counting? Swallows? They would have to fill empty coconuts with the ballots and send them by swallow. Probably African swallows because the European swallows demand to be unionized, the cheeky bastards.