"Two in three Americans (66%) in a June Gallup survey said they favor admitting Puerto Rico, now a U.S. territory, as a U.S. state. This is consistent with the 59% to 65% range of public support Gallup has recorded for Puerto Rico statehood since 1962." https://news.gallup.com/poll/260744/americans-continue-suppo...
The only thing stopping Puerto Rican statehood is the lack of majority rule in the US, and the fact that Republicans are heavily against Puerto Rican statehood. It's a partisan issue: "The majority of Democrats showed support for statehood for both D.C. (61.8%) and Puerto Rico (69.7%)" while among Republicans, only 26.7% supported D.C. statehood and 34.8% supported Puerto Rican statehood.
Although, if you're now switching to argue that the national opinion is _against_ (or at least the republicans would block it), then this actually excellently illustrates the original point that there are decisions which shouldn't be made nationally instead of locally!
So? Majorities are often slim. Just look at US elections. The difference is whether you have majority rule or minority rule.
> Although, if you're now switching to argue that the national opinion is _against_ (or at least the republicans would block it)
I'm not switching, I'm just saying it's a partisan issue, and Republicans happen to be over-represented in the national government due to territorial representation, which is how they're able to block Puerto Rican statehood, against the wishes of the majority. And it's pretty obvious why Republicans want to block Puerto Rican and D.C. statehood, because that would likely lead to additional Senate and House seats for Democrats.
Slim majorities mean the outcome of the election is not obvious - it's possible that the vote would have a different outcome.
> I'm not switching, I'm just saying it's a partisan issue
It illustrates the point well regardless.
Puerto Rico should choose independence or statehood, and the Congress should approve either way. Continuance of the colonialist/protectionist status is shocking.
But D.C. was originally not supposed to have any citizens. Only federal government offices, foreign embassies, and monuments/parks/museums. Perhaps Maryland can reclaim part of the district, as Virginia did.
Times change. That ship has sailed. It's the 21st century now, not the 18th.
The "no permanent residents" rule isn't necessarily bad
Us primates need not foist past spoken traditions and hallucinations on the future.
It’s absolutely hilarious that we’re watching Supra-national unions disintegrate (how much longer will Scotland be part of the UK?) but some Americans think a unitary majority-rules government in a country of 330 million people is a good idea. Madness.
There is a reason that virtually every country has some form of multi-level government. And in a multi-level government, non-majoritarian voting at higher levels can help protect the integrity of the multi-level system.