Talk:Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico

message: The main discussion is located here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I see a lot of problems with this article, some of which I describe below.
#The article appears to flout WP:LEAD. How about rewriting the first part along the lines of the following:
#In the Perceptions of disenfranchisement in Puerto Rico section, the article speaks of an "appeals court decision in 2005, on appeal of the decision in the third filing of the case" without ever explaining what the case is about or what happened in the first two filings.
# The article then launches into a bunch of quotes from federal appeals court rulings in a legal battle which has apparently been ongoing for several years. It is not usual to expect readers of WP articles to analyze and evaluate large blocks of legalese quoted directly from court opinions — in the years during which this legal battle has been raging, haven't any secondary sources ever written about it with analysis and evaluation?  Selectively quoting snippets from bits of court opinions -- possibly opinions from different decisions -- and placing the snippets in juxtaposition to one another as this article does looks a lot like it might be WP:OR -- analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.
#There's a bit in the article beginning, "Igartua IV - GREGORIO IGARTÚA ET AL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL, November 24, 2010" which looks as if it might be intended to be a quote, but it's not in a  template like the other quotes. I'm not sure how it is intended to fit in.
There are other apparent problems in the article, but I'll leave it at that for now. Could someone more familiar with the background here than I am please take a whack at straightening some of this out? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems; June 2011 

message: On August 4, 2011, 3 vote in favor to 3 vehemently dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit decline to accept the en banc review of Igartua IV.
IGARTÚA v. U.S.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
August 4, 2011.
Reference:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In FCO 20110804081.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7
Wikipedia does not recognized the web address completly because the space between the =In and the FCO.
--Seablade (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  En banc review of Igartua IV 

message: I just edited the lead paragraph, which previously wasn't clear in distinguishing legislative branch elections (done by the people) from executive branch elections (done by electors chosen by the States -- not necessarily via a vote of the people -- see here). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph edit distinguishing legislative branch elections from executive branch elections 

message: I just stumbled across a mention elsewhere of Minor v. Happersett . I see that it says, "Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, ...". It looks to me as if this might be relevant to the Perceptions of disenfranchisement in Puerto Rico section of this article. Perhaps it should be mentioned there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Minor v. Happersett'', the Constitution, and voting rights 

message: Both the Disenfranchisement in Puerto Rico and Igartúa sections pull extensively from the minority opinions in their respective cases (or dissenting parts of concurring opinions, etc.), devoting much more length to them. This seems like it might be a potential neutrality issue. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality issues? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: There is a consensus against the proposed target. "Federal elections in Puerto Rico" was also suggested during the discussion, but did not gain a clear consensus either. So the verdict is not moved.   (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico →  – Change "in" in title to "of" to distinguish between U.S. Citizens of Puerto Rico, and U.S. Citizens of a state (e.g. Florida) who travel to Puerto Rico, or anywhere else in the world, but have not changed their residency nor status from said state (i.e. absentee voters). — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

text: While not especially controversial and could be moved without discussion, I thought using the RM template would be a good idea, in case there is a technicality about the reasoning that I'm not aware of. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I had considered that, but to my mind that suggests people of Puerto Rican descent who were born and reside within the U.S. states (represented by said state in a Presidential and Congressional election). — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I previously retracted a comment so I could reword it. The article presently includes "Federal" in its title, which I believe defines the difference between general voting rights, and voting rights for specific elections / offices. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ? — BarrelProof (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit long, but good. Just to make sure I'm on the same page... Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner to the House of Representatives, and shadow congresspersons, but otherwise Puerto Rico does not have the authority for final legislation vote, nor electoral votes for the office of President. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the title needs to be longer, such as , because the resident commisioner / shadow congresspersons themselves have no federal voting rights (except at the personal level if they are non-residents). If the title is , my understanding is that the whole article doesn't need to be much longer than the title it could just be one sentence long: "Residents of Puerto Rico do not have federal voting rights." Or it could be a redirect to Null set. A more pleasant topic is . — BarrelProof (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Since Puerto Rico is not a country, I don't think there is a concept of being a "citizen of Puerto Rico". I've never heard of someone being a "citizen of Indiana", for example. Citizenship does not change when moving from Cincinnati to Boston or Bayamón. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably missed something  was trying to convey; please elaborate. How do you define an entity's voting rights within the scope of "federal"? Please provide an alternate suggestion for the title if you have one. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, Speaker of the House is an elected position at the federal level in the United States. The representatives of the states vote in that election, so in some sense that is a voting right of the state at the federal level. Another example could be a vote in the United Nations. Each country gets one vote. It is a voting right "of" that country (as an entity). This is not about the voting rights of Puerto Rico; it is about the voting rights of the individual people of Puerto Rico. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that the ordinary passage of a federal law also involves a voting process at the federal level, and there is no representation of the residents of Puerto Rico in that voting process. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

text: I like thatbrief, to the point, and doesn't allure to U.S. state absentee voters, nor people of Puerto Rico descent as U.S. state citizens. , , your opinions? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that sounds good—blindlynx (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Primary elections are not federal elections. They are elections held within private organizations. Political parties in the United States are voluntary self-organized associations, not part of the government at any level. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  U.S. Presidential Elections in Puerto Rico? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of federal voting rights for residents of Puerto Rico is not just about presidential elections. They also do not have voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. (Also please note that Wikipedia uses sentence case, not title case.) The only problem I see with  is that they do not have any such rights (at least none that are recognized under current law). So I think a more accurate title would be  or . — BarrelProof (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

text: , I'm afraid your second suggestion wouldn't work. Presidential elections are only part of the General Elections, and Puerto Rico doesn't have any electoral votes. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  , I wasn't going to argue 's reasoning (though you are correct, Primaries are not federal), but what do you think of the title suggestion, ? As for the later suggestion, I agree with you for the reasons you've stated that  wouldn't work, but I think your suggestions following are getting off track. Puerter Rico has federal elections: they elect a federal official to the lower chamber of the United States Congress every four years in the General Elections. I believe the point you are trying to make is that the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico elect a non-voting member of the House of Representatives (as well as lacking a Senator), and thus the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico lack full representation at the federal level. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have about exhausted my usefulness in this discussion, although I will again repeat my suggestion to use sentence case for the article title. Please see WP:TITLEFORMAT. (I also suggest not using  in such discussions that makes it look like you are requesting people's attention when you are deliberately suppressing their notification; I've never seen that used before.) — BarrelProof (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the explanation on the . If I want to refer to someone and am afraid of pinging them excessively, I just use their username in plain text. I didn't even know about that template. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 April 2021