Talk:2012 Puerto Rican status referendum/Archive 1

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://jurist.org/hotline/2012/02/pedro-pierluisi-referendum.php. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Brandon 5485  01:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Polls?
Any information on the current polling results from the referendum? Is the referendum expected to succeed? Anything that talks about its current status in public opinion would be a helpful addition to the article. Zaldax (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing. Anything out there? --Lionheart Omega (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was curious about it as well, as a newspaper article gave me the impression a vote was held on August 12th. However, Political status of Puerto Rico states that the plan was to have two polls, one about whether or not to change the status (August 2012), and one for what the now status should be (November 2012), but that they are merged into a single referendum to be held in November 2012.
 * Buut, you guys probably mean gallup polls when I think about it, and yeah, that would be interesting to see. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two newspapers publishing polls, but both only do so in their printed version so that people buy it. The first to publish them was El Nuevo Dia, which is genrally considered to lean towards the PPD:


 * The first poll (march) had: Independence 3%, ELA Soberano (what has been described as "free association with double citizenship" by PPD members) 42%, Statehood 32%
 * The second (may) had: Independence 5%, ELA Soberano 45%, Statehood 36%
 * The third (august) had: Independence 5%, ELA Soberano 43%, Statehood 37%
 * The remaining percent is either not voting or unsure which option they prefer.

The other newspaper is El Vocero, which is generally regarded to lean towards the PNP:
 * They published the first sometime around March, which gave a 4% advantage to Statehood over the ELA Soberano, but I can't say what the percents were because they changed servers and all of the analisis were wiped.
 * The second had a tie between Statehood and ELA Soberano at 39%.
 * In neither case El Vocero discussed independence in its analisis.

Old School WWC Fan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, this is going to be a horse race. Cause, what I get out of this is the fact Puerto Rico is anywhere near decided on way or another. Seriously, what are the chances of a definitive result? --Lionheart Omega (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In this referendum? I would say 10% or less, none of the options is likely to get anything over 52-53%. The only logical chance for a "definitive" result would be that all of the center-left wing parties formed some sort of alliance to support free association and make it something along the lines of "Statehood: Yes or No", given that the PNP is regarded as a common enemy. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
Blank votes are valid votes. Only those that are invalid votes are not valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.81.115 (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give us any evidence for that? As far as I can see, blank votes are not properly counted as actual votes, and I have not seen any evidence that those blank votes are meant to carry a message other than those who have voted Yes in the first question. Raistuumum (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there is a group of votes that is called invalid votes to which blank votes don't belong, draw your own conclusions. You can also read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_vote and you can also check the officcial results of the puerto rican referendum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.210.54 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy lovers, you got the labells of the table wrong again: blank votes are valid votes, act accordingly please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.94.149 (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Electoral method?
It's not entirely clear from the article how the two-stage, single-election plebiscite will work. If the "change the status quo" option fails to get a majority, is there an instant runoff/AV/STV resolution of the second question? First past the post? Including or excluding status quo from the second round? This sounds like it could produce some very odd results if preferences between several options are roughly evenly split, depending on the exact procedure used. 84.203.33.210 (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Both are tallied separately, the first supposed to judge if PR will change its territorrial status in January 2013, the second, which they prefer among the non-territorial options.


 * The PNP has said that if they territory wins, they will continue to make these polls every two years regardless of who wins in the United States.
 * The PPD has claimed that regardless if the territory wins or no, they are waiting one year (if Obama is reelected) for the White House to act as recommended in the task force's paper and will otherwise organize a constituent assembly in 2014. The MUS and PIP also support a constituent assembly.
 * No idea what will happen if the PPD and Republican parties win...

Old School WWC Fan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a non-binding vote. Meaning it doesn't really matter what happens. The US Congress has the power to make Puerto Rico Independent if 100% are against it, or make it a state if 100% of the people are against it, or do nothing.68.81.112.197 (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding results before vote counting is finished
Maybe adding in the results should wait until the vote count is complete? The official (I think) results page says: "REPORTED POLLING STATIONS: 1389 OF 1643 FOR 84.36%"... --Yair rand (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Really shouldn't. I've just fooled by that. I thought the election was over when I see the word "resulted". Then I went to the official page, it says it's still going on. -- Wiki637 ※ Talk 09:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight
Is it me, or are the criticism being given undue weight without any representation from those who disagreed? This presents a serious NPOV issue with the article as it stands. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like the section wouldn't be undue if the rest of the article was as developed as it should be, but it is currently far too large a section compared to the rest of the article. Ryan Vesey 03:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Current template
I feel that the information about this is not changing rapidly as the template suggests. The documentation page says it applies when 100's of editors are editing on the same day. It is meant to apply to breaking news. In this case, the event is finished and while more information will come about, there won't be an amount that necessitates the template. Ryan Vesey 03:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess. I just feel that 100s of editors editing is not relevant to whether or not an event is a current event. If we go by that standard then Category:Current events should be cleaned up. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that some articles in that category seem to have been added manually. I would have no problem with adding this article to the category (I am unaware of anything that says we can't at least).  Current is meant as a warning to readers so they understand that the article will be changing rapidly.  Since that is not the case, the template shouldn't be there, even though it is a current event. Ryan Vesey 03:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's acceptable to me. Maybe it would be a good idea to rework the template to denotes current event articles that are not expected to change as rapidly.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

original research for understanding, not for article
Inclusion of original research in Wikipedia articles is prohibited. However, use of original research to understand the subject better then to write a better article is permitted and can be a good idea. With that disclaimer, I offer the following idea.

Those who use the referendum to support statehood may be using flawed logic.

The first referendum question is whether to stay the same or not. 54% say not, 46% want continued commonwealth status.

The second referendum question results of statehood is 61%. However, 46% want no change as was determined by the first referendum.

Hypothetically, it could be: 46% want commonwealth status, the current situation (this is not hypothetical but a true result) 33% want statehood 16% want sovereign free association state, and 4% want independence.

If that is the case, then those who say that the will of the people is statehood could be proposing a false idea. In the numbers above, the most popular choice is commonwealth.

Now, perhaps reliable sources could be used to see if my idea is not a new idea. It would boggle the mind if I am the first to think of this. I really doubt that I am the first. Auchansa (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Without looking very hard, I found a citation:

said Luis Agrait, a history professor at the University of Puerto Rico. Secondly, a large number of ballots -- one-third of all votes cast -- were left blank on the question of preferred alternative status. If you assume those blank votes are anti-statehood votes, the true result for the statehood option would be less than 50%, Agrait argues.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html This quote doesn't exactly cover my point, though. Auchansa (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What if there were a referendum:

Question 1: Do you want spinach for dinner? Yes 30%, No 70%.

Question 2: If you are forced to not have spinach, do you want poop, cyanide, or urine? Urine 70%, Poop 16%, Cyanide 14%.

Conclusion: People prefer urine!

No!!!!! People actually prefer spinach if given that choice.

Auchansa (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (Auchansa, please try to stay calm and remain civil. Thanks.)
 * Well, none of the following OR can be used in the article, but to explain a few things:
 * The referendum was asking about more than two choices, all of which were mutually exclusive, a decision which is mathematically impossible to decide fairly. People's preferences are complicated, allowing it to be that all options are directly going against the majority when pitted against some other option. This particular referendum "bundles" together three options, pitting them against one option (current status), and then counts a run-off between the remaining three options. It's certainly a sub-optimal method of decision-making, (for optimal you'd need to use an advanced Condorcet method like the Schulze method or Tideman method,) but it's no more incorrect than using the results of a run-off of switched-around options. Supposing that there was a referendum asking "Should Puerto Rico become a state of the USA?" and then "Which non-statehood option do you prefer?", then you would similiarly be likely to get a result that isn't supported by a majority against another particular option, and be in the exact same situation. It's impossible to fairly isolate any two options to decide between, and adding in the third option (even if it wouldn't win in any case) can flip the results straight backward, regardless of what vote system is used. (See Independence of irrelevant alternatives.) So, to answer, it is perfectly possible that the statehood result would be less-preferred than one specific potential alternative (in this case most likely the current status), but that doesn't actually mean it's not correct to use it as an indicator that the people support statehood. --Yair rand (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, I am polite and nice. I always am.  I was afraid nobody would respond.  With your comment, we know there is a problem.  Now we can look for citations.  There are citations about why there are problems with the referendum.  I do not know much about PR and prefer that somebody else take the lead.  I merely thought of the idea.  I read CNN (or was it somewhere else?) where there were questions to whether statehood was really the #1 choice.  One professor interviewed said that combined with the blank ballots (hundreds of thousand), statehood got less than 50%.


 * I am not conducting the election but a possible fair way would be to ask:
 * What do you want?

___ Statehood ___ Commonwealth ___Sovereign Free Association ___ Independence


 * I think commonweath would get 46% (it did), statehood about 35%, SFA 15%, independence 4%. Auchansa (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not any kind of expert but it seems to me that the largest group voted for keeping things as they are. Borock (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the official results, the first question clearly stated if you would like to keep the current status. No received 54% of the votes while yes only received 46%.  The question was as follows: "Está usted de acuerdo con mantener la condición política territorial actual?" Easy enough question and Puerto Rican people are mostly well educated.  http://www.ceepur.org/es-pr/Documents/PapeletaModeloPlebiscito12.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.163.36 (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * True. But still it looks like the group wanting independence was the smallest, the group wanting statehood larger, and the group wanting to keep territory status the largest of the three. No group had the majority.  If the first question had been "Should Puerto Rico become a state?" the no votes would be more than 54%.  If it was "Should it be an independent nation?" the no votes would be about 90%.  I'm only using the data given in this article to say this. Borock (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the best mainstream article I have discovered on the topic:

www.huffingtonpost.com/maritza-stanchich-phd/puerto-rico-divided-statehood_b_2118365.html 68.81.112.197 (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Article is contradicting itself
In the intro, at one point it says that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood and in the next sentence it sounds like it is saying that Puerto Ricans have voted in favour of statehood, saying that Puerto Rico "is expected to introduce congressional legislation admitting Puerto Rico to the Union". What do the results say? Have Puerto Ricans voted in favour of statehood within the United States or have they voted against it?--R-41 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article makes clear it's not that straigtforward. A majority wants change; with statehood being the most given answer as to what that change should entail... That not a very clear answer, but not contradictory... L.tak (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What if the questions had been: 1. Do you want Puerto Rico and the United States to continue to have a close relationship? 2. If so would you prefer the present arrangement or statehood?  What do you think the answers would have been then? Borock (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a referendum on these 4 options should be held with 3 questions: 1. Do you want Puerto Rico to become a state of the USA, yes or no? 2. Do you want Puerto Rico to become fully independent, yes or no? 3. Do you want Puerto Rico to become a Sovereign Free Associated State, yes or no? In case of a no in all three cases, PR would remain a territory of the USA, in case of a single yes the option that won is taken, since it got a majority of people behind it and there is no reason to vote blank, and in case of more than one yes, a deciding referendum between the winners is held on the new status. I think Obama should demand a vote with these rules (or maybe even better, Rubio could demand it, and Obama could say "Good idea" - that way it could get through Congress better). (Still, 805 thousand people voted for statehood and only 798 thousand for the current status, so I wouldn't say statehood was defeated) Ambi Valent (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you see? The people who voted for statehood preferred that to independence, but that doesn't mean that they preferred it to its present status.  The people who preferred independence also would also logically prefer the present status to statehood, since statehood could never be changed. (see: American Civil War)  :-)  -Borock (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking sides, just trying to see the logic. It seems to me that if the vote was territory vs. state only, territory would win because it would get the votes of its own supporters and also the supporters of independence. Borock (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Knowing a bit about my fellow countrymen, the truth is that the majority of Puerto Ricans don't want statehood. They want a form of sovereignty that doesn't allow the US to pack up and dismantle everything that was built and exists in Puerto Rico. Independence as currently defined means that the US would revoke all Puerto Rican's US citizenship (which is by the way unconstitutional and against the 13th amendment as you can't simply revoke an entire people's citizenship), the Puerto Rico would lose all the funds collected in taxes thus far, all programs and assistance set up under the current government would be dismantled, etc. It is a fairly extreme definition of independence designed to have no one vote for it. If a form of soviergnty that allowed for Puerto Ricans to keep or transition, not simply destroy, the existing infrastructure was an option, I bet you the majority of Puerto Ricans would go for that option. The problem is the US writes and designs these ballots, not the Puerto Ricans. So it is the American government saying, "you can pick what you want, but only of the options we tell you you can have and the way we tell you you can have them, with the conditions we decided... But it's your free choice"68.81.112.197 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Blank votes
I do not see nor have found any evidence that blank votes are counted as valid, nor that the governor-elect had said to place the second question blank as a protest vote. I reverted the results back to the way they were depicted in the CEEPUR website. Raistuumum (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This source says people were urged to vote no . I don't think we should change our percentages in the ballot at all, but we should write about the affect of the blank votes on the percentages. Ryan Vesey 01:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As this is an opinion piece, I find this source rather dubious. If anything, the PDP would of urged voters to vote Yes on the first question, rendering the second question null no matter what answer. Raistuumum (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mind was in another place. The source says voters were urged not to vote.  I doubt the author of the source is making up information. Ryan Vesey 02:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm... we'll have to wait for more sources then. All I'm finding so far is the governor-elect saying he is dismissing the referendum. Raistuumum (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the source added is much more like it. Thanks to whoever added it. Raistuumum (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since people kept changing the numbers in the table I went ahead and added a second column so both percentages can be seen. Should prevent some revert wars. — MK (t/c) 04:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The introduction stating percentages of "voters" that chose each of the three options was incorrect. The percentages given are those of "valid votes", assuming a blank ballot is "invalid". There were many voters who cast blank ballots -- the article says so. I have not changed the percentages, as that appears to be controversial, but I did change the description so it is not inaccurate. Zaslav (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that in the last plebicite, "None of the Above" won with 50%, and given that this time that was taken off the ballot and that there were many people who voted on the first half of the ballot but left the second half blank, I think we can assume most Puerto Ricans and unsatisfied with the current status, but do NOT want statehood, and many do not care for the options presented as it. When including blank ballots on question two, we see the numbers are virtually the same as the 1998 and 1967 votes, meaning Puerto Ricans are consistent in how they feel. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The interpretation of Blank votes is simply original research. Here on the States just count the people that casted the vote.

Is the Huffington Post good enough to show I am not the only human being in the world who has not escaped the obvious conclusion about the blank ballots? Why vote you are unhappy in part one and leave part two blank? Except that, when we look 15 years back, the basically numbers haven't dramatically changed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julio-pabon/statehood-vote-in-puerto-_b_2094586.html In any case, the US congress tomorrow could declare Puerto Rico a state even in 100% of the people voted to become independent. How they count the ballot is up to them. The various plebiscites and referendums are also meaningless because they have usually been written by one political party or the US Congress, effectively stating you are free to choose from the options WE have already selected for you. Puerto Ricans have consistently rejected these options crafted by other people as what they want or an expression of their choice.68.81.112.197 (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And now I will quote the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/puerto-rico-votes-on-whether-to-change-relationship-with-us-elects-governor-and-legislators/2012/11/06/d87278ae-288b-11e2-aaa5-ac786110c486_story.html "Puerto Rico’s voters endorse seeking US statehood but ballot results raise questions" "Tuesday’s vote comes with an asterisk and an imposing political reality: The island remains bitterly divided over its relationship to the United States and many question the validity of this week’s referendum.

Nearly a half million voters chose to leave a portion of the ballot blank. And voters also ousted the pro-statehood governor, eliminating one of the main advocates for a cause that would need the approval of the U.S. Congress.

“Statehood won a victory without precedent but it’s an artificial victory,” said Angel Israel Rivera Ortiz, a political science professor at the University of Puerto Rico."68.81.112.197 (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since when, a mark or a left blank vote means whatever a blogger wants to make believe? That is the question!

You can make a multiples Interpretation about blank ballots, the one that you propose is just one of the original research of a blogger or an editorial position trying to impose their personal opinion over the facts! The Puerto Rico Supreme Court declared in 2009 on the case Cáceres v. Comision Estatal de Elecciones CEE:

Indeed, in that case ordered that blank ballots as votes were awarded not favoring any political status options for Puerto Rico. In doing so, we rely on the fundamental right and preeminent suffrage, recognized both in our constitutional order as in the United States of America. At that time, we also note that that universal suffrage was protected constitutionally both in the general election as in referendums and plebiscites. Reference:Caceres v. CEE

It not feasible an interpretation without entering on Original Research or Personal Opinion of what the blogger want us to believe! The article must include just reliable sources! Bloggers are not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.45.79 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In an election a blank vote is meaningless, and the reasons behind can be nothing but speculative. People regularly under vote or blank vote in all american elections for a wide variety of reasons. There should be no specific meaning listed in the article regarding the blank votes.XavierGreen (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A blank vote is meaningless in the United States of America! I agree with XavierGreen. There should be no specific meaning listed in the article regarding the blank votes.

Buzity (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a discussion going on here but, as a resident of Puerto Rico I can attest that the Governor-elect and his party had requested their voters to leave the second question unanswered. As a matter of fact, there are several sources within the article (like this and this) that mention how it was a directive of the PPD to do so. Also, one of those references talks about the ensuing argument that is now in the news about the validity of the results. A lot of references in the article expose what some people see as an ambiguity on the results due to the blank question (not ballot). Thief12 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the only meaning being imposed was that there was no meaning, and could be no meaning. It is clear that these ballots cast a vote clearly marking "No" to question one, that they were unsatisfied with the current status. No on argues against that. It was clear and decisive choice for question one. It is clear that for part two they left it blank. If it is agreed they are unsatisfied with the current status, it is also clear that half a million ballots that are unhappy with the current status (see question one) are also not in favor of selective the presented options, otherwise they would pick the option they liked. That is simply logic, not interpretation. If those who were clear enough on question on to select "no", they were also clear in their refusal to play the game and select any of the other options. It is clear that those voters did not find any of the other options on the ballot worth voting for. In any case, this just once again shows how ridiculous and a sham these referendums are in Puerto Rico. Whether their opinion matters or not, of course it doesn't. The opinions of Puerto Ricans in their relationship to the United States has never mattered in 114 years. It didn't matter when the Jones Act was forced on Puerto Rico in 1917, making Puerto Ricans US citizens even when the Puerto Rican government opposed it, resulting three weeks later in a draft into World War I. The United States did not consult the Puerto Ricans when they annexed the nation 114 years ago, and they haven't once given the nation the opportunity to construct their own ballot since then, dictating and not asking about the terms of the status between the US and Puerto Rico in referendums written by the US congress, not the Puerto Rican government or people. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think most Americans would agree with me that the people of Puerto Rico should have what they want, statehood, independence, territory status, whatever. Most of us would also agree that the US has a history of racism and even imperialism.  However there does not seem to be evidence that the blank votes were against territory status, or that this election showed that the majority favored statehood. Borock (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Check vs. X
On the charts showing the results, the first question has an X by the most chosen response, while the second question has a check. These ought to be standardized. 24.1.0.232 (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Extensive repetition!
Wegesrand (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Luis Agrait quote
This quote by history professor Luis Agrait, on CNN, has been deleted twice so far arguing the notability of Agrait:


 * History professor Luis Agrait said to CNN that "a large number of ballots -- one-third of all votes cast -- were left blank on the question of preferred alternative status. If you assume those blank votes are anti-statehood votes, the true result for the statehood option would be less than 50%"

First, Agrait's quote actually encompasses in a simple argument where the alleged ambiguity in the votes comes from. Second, regardless of how notable Agrait is (which I don't think should necessarily come into question when quoting him in article), the guy was quoted by CNN, which is easily one of the biggest news network in the world. That's why I think his quote belongs there. Thief12 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Canvass finished; final results published; differ from article
The official final results vary a bit from those published on the article as of this date. Please see and update the article accordingly. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Format for November 6, 2012 results
Percentage of Total Turnout

100.0%  =   1,878,969 voters. (=78.2% of 2,402,941 registered voters.)

Keep current status, Yes or No.

44.1%  =    828,077   Yes Votes

51.7%  =     970,910    No Votes

4.3%   =     79,982     Didn't choose yes or no

Choose type of status.

44.4%   =    834,191    Statehood Votes

24.2%   =    454,768    Sovereign Free Association with U.S

4.0%     =   74,895    Independence Votes

27.4%    =   515,115    Didn't choose any of above

I think the above is more comprehensive because everyone that participated in the election and asked what they think are counted. 99.36.23.236 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)