Comments:Puerto Rican voters support US statehood
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Comments from feedback form - "Less than 33% of Puerto Rico s..." | 1 | 20:11, 7 December 2012 |
| Just become a state and stop leeching | 0 | 10:10, 18 November 2012 |
| issue framing | 8 | 22:42, 15 November 2012 |
Less than 33% of Puerto Rico supports statehood.
Based on what? In the referendum described here, two thirds of those who voted on the referendum answered the second question, and of those who answered the second question, 61% voted for statehood. So forty percent of those who voted on the referendum said they were in favor of statehood. That's more than the thirty three percent you claim. So you're not getting your thirty-three-percent number from the referendum. Where do you get it from?
No federal income tax! I'd like that set up. free loaders.
People in DC where I used to live, get no senate or congress voting representation, yet pay fed and high city taxes and get horrible and corrupt city services. I was so glad to finally see that dc license plate "no taxation without representation"
Maybe the results of the election were affected by the way the question was worded on the ballot? That's a likely reason for the results being so ambiguous...
It's remarkably hard to write questions well. Often, even when you think you have it right, the respondents don't understand it the way you thought they would. I've a fuzzy memory of a poll in the US in which over half of respondents said they did not believe in God, and over half said they believed Jesus Christ is the living Son of God. Since it's hard to imagine a significant fraction of respondents believe JC to be the living Son of a God that they don't believe exists, it seems these questions were not understood by respondents the way they were to the authors of the questions.
Even if the questions were worded well, it's still impossible to devise a fair way of aggregating the voters' rankings of three or more options. (Arrow's impossibility theorem)
I've heard this claim before. From what I understand of the point, the meaning behind it has two distinct parts: one to do with the information content of poll results, the other to do with the vagueness of the concept of fairness. Those two parts should really be kept separate. The most useful question to ask about a poll like this is, what does this tell us about respondents' thinking?
Very, very interesting!! It's funny to me, how, the deeper you get into Economics, the closer it starts to become metaphysical/spiritual/religious-like in design!
Three guys die and go to Heaven, where they're greeted by Albert Einstein. Einstein asks the first guy, "What's your IQ?" The guy answers, "170." "Wonderful!", says Einstein, "We can spend eternity discussing theoretical physics!" He asks the second, "What's your IQ?" The second guy answers, "270." "Wonderful! We can spend eternity discussing economic theory!" He asks the third, "What's your IQ?" The third guy answers, "70." Einstein shakes his hand warmly. "Glad to meet you! What stocks do you like?"