[KS] Re: voting rights [was: Koreans in Japan]

[Jason Shaw Parker]

REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

Great clarification - thanks. Some of us in Ohio were debating this issue a 
week ago.

Jason Parker

At 11:09 AM 09/04/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>REPLY sends your message to the whole list
>__________________________________________
>
>Jason,
>
>Good question but info I accessed says (in part) the following:
>
>"The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is governed under a constitution of 1952,
>as amended.  Residents of the commonwealth may not vote in U.S. presidential
>elections. Puerto Rico is represented by a nonvoting resident delegate in
>the Congress of the United States. The delegate is elected by Puerto Ricans
>to a four-year term."
>
>John
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jason Shaw Parker" <parker.294 at osu.edu>
>To: <korean-studies at iic.edu>
>Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 11:02 AM
>Subject: Re: voting rights [was: Koreans in Japan]
>
>
> > REPLY sends your message to the whole list
> > __________________________________________
> >
> > I agree - but a note of clarification. I was under the impression that
> > Puerto Rico was only allowed to participate in Presidential Elections
> > (hence their presence and casting of ballots at the RNC and DNC this
>year).
> > Is this correct?
> >
> > Jason Parker
> >
> > At 10:05 PM 09/03/2000 -0400, you wrote:
> > >REPLY sends your message to the whole list
> > >__________________________________________
> > >
> > >One hundred years ago, U.S. troops captured the island of Puerto Rico,
>along
> > >with Cuba and the Philippines, in the Spanish-American War. Cuba and the
> > >Philippines achieved independence, but Puerto Rico's status remained
> > >unclear, a political football domestically and on the island. The debate
> > >over self-governance for island residents has been addressed in piecemeal
> > >fashion and only gained steam in the last half-century.
> > >
> > >During WWI, in 1917 fears about German expansion in the Caribbean &
>Mexico
> > >(remember Zimmerman Telegram) triggered the U.S. purchase of the Virgin
> > >Islands from Denmark for $25 million. When residents of the island were
> > >offered U.S. citizenship, Puerto Rico was included in the deal. World War
>II
> > >and the Cold War with the former USSR drove the move in 1952 to establish
> > >commonwealth status for the island because of concerns again for Caribbea
>n
> > >security and the Panama Canal.
> > >
> > >The result has been a strange status of commonwealth where Puerto Ricans
>do
> > >not pay federal taxes and cannot vote in presidential or congressional
> > >elections. They elect a governor and a non-voting delegate to Congress,
> > >called a resident commissioner.  Perhaps Korea would have ended up with
>this
> > >status in the Empire of Japan.
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "k u s h i b o" <jdh95 at hitel.net>
> > >To: <korean-studies at iic.edu>
> > >Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 8:32 PM
> > >Subject: Re: voting rights [was: Koreans in Japan]
> > >
> > >
> > > > REPLY sends your message to the whole list
> > > > __________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Reply to: kushibo at mac.com
> > > > Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> > > > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> > > >
> > > > Dr. John Caruso Jr. wrote:
> > > > > Yes, there are problems of equitable representation
> > > > > as Wash DC has a pop. of 520,000
> > > >
> > > > I have it listed as 620,000 (Washington DC itself, not including the
> > > > surrounding areas of Virginia and Maryland).
> > > >
> > > > > while Wyoming (home of Dick Cheney) has only 480,000
> > > > > residents and gets two US Senators and one Congressperson.
> > > >
> > > > And it had even less when it became a state way back. Does anybody
>know
> > >the
> > > > population threshold for statehood? Guam has only 105,000 residents,
>which
> > >I
> > > > think is below that threshold.
> > > >
> > > > DC does now get representation on par with states of similar
>population in
> > > > terms of presidential elections. It receives three electoral votes, as
>if
> > >it
> > > > were a state.
> > > >
> > > > > Voting is historically a privilege not an inalienable
> > > > > right and the electoral college further exposes the myth
> > > > > of majority rule as you mentioned in Hayes v. Tilden.
> > > >
> > > > The more I think about it, the more detrimental I consider it to be.
>It
> > > > really exacerbates the spoiler effect of a third party candidate,
>skewing
> > > > the results in favor of what may be the least popular candidate,
>and/or
> > > > forcing many voters to choose a major party candidate they prefer less
> > > > rather than a third party candidate they feel has no chance.
> > > >
> > > > > Spanish is the language of instruction in Puerto Rico....
> > > > > I wonder how many parallels we could draw between the status
> > > > > of Puerto Rico and the mainland and Japan and Korea?  Didn't
> > > > > we annex PR in 1898 and force the residents to
> > > > > become US citizens in 1917?
> > > >
> > > > "Force"? That may be a bit strong of a word, especially if citizenship
> > >were
> > > > offered as a concession of some kind.
> > > >
> > > > But, yes, definitely some parallels (although the example of the
> > >Philippines
> > > > may be a closer parallel; Puerto Rico would be more like America's
> > >Okinawa,
> > > > not America's Korea). At any rate, some parallels may be that there
>was a
> > > > different language spoken, close geographic proximity of the colony to
>the
> > > > colonizer, belated granting of full citizenship, a native separatist
> > > > movement that included violence against the high-level members of the
> > > > colonizer's government (there was an assassination attempt by Puerto
>Rican
> > > > separatists against Truman in the 1950s), local infrastructure
>development
> > > > that was put in place mainly for the colonizer but had peripheral
>benefits
> > > > for the local population, drafting of the colonized into the military
>for
> > > > battles in foreign lands and waters, and discrimination against the
> > > > colonized who migrated to the main territory of the colonizer.
> > > >
> > > > Differences would be that there was no attempt (to my knowledge) to
> > >supplant
> > > > Spanish with English or to dissuade the use of Spanish, no military
>had to
> > > > be dismantled nor a national government replaced, the proportional
> > > > difference between the PR and Mainland US populations was much larger,
>the
> > > > proportional difference between the PR and Mainland land masses was
>much
> > > > larger, the PR shared cultural aspects with other nearby nations so
>there
> > > > wasn't much fear of losing a whole culture, and little administrative
> > > > attempt was made to force Americanization on the PRans.
> > > >
> > > > Off-hand, I can't think of any others.
> > > >
> > > > K U S H I B O
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >