Talk:Puerto Rico's election for governer contested

Governer

It's spelled "governor" isn't it? I haven't changed it, because I'm not sure if this is just a case of US English diverging from proper English, and me not being aware of it, but if it is a typo it probably should be corrected before this article is "put to print".

Other than that, the article seems to be fine.

Lankiveil 06:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC).

It may be that the ballot is for the election of someone who governs the political party, where "governer" is a more generic term. I'm not sure. But I wanted to say that "a governer of their political party and any one person" is a pretty confusing phrase anyways. What does "any one person" refer to?

--Thesilentist 00:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if it really matters to anyone at this time but, I'll give you some info.

Puerto Rico has three ballots: the state ballot (Papeleta Estatal), the legislative ballot (Papeleta Legislativa) and the municipal ballot (Papeleta Municipal).

All three allow voting in the following manner:

Integral Vote (Voto Íntegro)

In which a voter only puts a mark below a party symbol. Equals a vote for each candidate under that column.

Mixed Vote (Voto Mixto)

In which a voter puts a mark below a party symbol and a mark(s) besides another party's candidate(s). Equals a vote for each candidate under that party's column except that candidate(s) for whose position the voter marked other parties' candidate(s).

Candidate Vote (Voto por Candidatura)

In which a voter only puts a mark besides each chosen candidate.

The issue here was with the state ballot, in which we elect the Governor (Gobernador) and the Resident Commissioner (Comisionado Residente). Many Independence Party voters cast a Mixed Vote in which they put a mark below their party symbol and a mark besides both Popular Democratic Party's candidates. The intent of this vote was to vote ensure the defeat of the New Progressive Party's candidate while maintaining their party's "offcially inscribed" status. The New Progressive Party argued that this was an invalid vote. --JRPastrana 14:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)