Catalonia, an autonomous region in Spain, will hold an independence referendum on October 1.

Tensions between Spain and its Catalan region can be traced back to the 18th century when Spain conquered the Catalan capital of Barcelona. With the adoption of a new constitution in 1978, Spain granted some autonomy to the country’s 17 communities, including Catalonia.

Pro-independence parties have built political momentum in recent years by gaining a majority of seats in the Catalan parliament in 2015. In a nonbinding 2014 referendum, Catalan officials reported that 80 percent of voters were in favor of independence, however, turnout only reached 40 percent.

Beyond its historical and cultural differences with the rest of the country, Catalonia’s case for independence relies largely on the economic disparity between it and the other Spanish communities. Proponents of independence see this referendum as a way to separate wealthy Catalonia from the remaining, poorer segment of Spain.

Catalan lawmakers voted 72-63 on July 26 to allow the region to declare independence within 48 hours if the upcoming referendum passes, according to the Associated Press. However, the referendum on October 1 will not be met without opposition. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy spoke out against the independence efforts during a press conference on July 28.

“There will be no referendum on October 1 because that is what the Constitutional Court has determined. […] The Spanish government is going to defend the law,” Rajoy said. Previous rulings from Spain’s Constitutional Court have said that attempts to secede would be unconstitutional.

Rajoy also tweeted: “After hearing the opinion of the Council of State, we filed an appeal to ensure compliance with the law and to protect civil servants.”

Some citizens are afraid to vote in the upcoming referendum because it could violate Spanish law and the directive of the country’s leaders. Polling stations must decide whether to even open and allow people to cast their votes. Across Spain, uncertainty remains in the months leading up to the referendum.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Catalonia Approaches Independence Vote Amidst Tensions With Spain appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, June 11, Puerto Rico voted in a non-binding referendum to become the 51st U.S. state. While that doesn’t necessarily mean much–it certainly does not in any way guarantee that Puerto Rico will actually become a state–it does fit into the overall conversation about the island’s relationship with the United States. Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for just over 100 years, and discussions about its relationship with the United States have been constant since then. Read on to learn about Puerto Rico’s potential bid for statehood and what could be next for the territory.

A Brief History of Puerto Rico’s Status

Puerto Rico officially became a territory of the United States on March 2, 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Jones-Shafroth Act. This act made the people of Puerto Rico citizens of the United States and made Puerto Rico an American territory. The island had been in U.S. possession for about 20 years prior to that point. Spain had ceded the area, as well as Guam and the Phillippines, to the U.S. with the Treaty of Paris that ended the Spanish-American War.

The Jones-Shafroth Act set up a government in Puerto Rico and defined the relationship between the island and the United States. In 1952, Puerto Rico officially became a commonwealth, meaning that it has its own constitution.

But despite such a long history, the relationship has remained contentious. While Puerto Ricans are American citizens, the region doesn’t necessarily enjoy the same privileges as a state. For example, Puerto Ricans don’t have a voting representative in Congress, nor are they able to vote for President (although, interestingly enough, they can vote in primary elections).

Statehood Votes in the Past and Present 

Puerto Rico has voted on the question of statehood four times prior to this weekend’s vote. The first time was in 1967; in that vote, only 39 percent of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood. In 1993, 46 percent voted for statehood. Next, in 1998, 46.5 percent voted in favor of statehood. In 2012, a majority of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood for the first time. At that point, 61 percent of Puerto Ricans said “yes” to the statehood question–although the validity of that number is actually contested.

In the referendum held on June 11, 2017, 97 percent of Puerto Ricans voted in favor of statehood. But it’s important to note that the vote is actually under some criticism. It had a very low turnout–only 23 percent of registered voters participated. That’s the lowest turnout in an election in Puerto Rico since 1967. And that low turnout was largely due to a boycott organized by parties that opposed statehood, which claimed that the vote was “rigged” in favor of statehood. They complained that the ballot question had been phrased in a way that made not voting for statehood seem negative. Although there was a huge majority that voted in favor of statehood, the criticisms of the referendum may mean that it’s not regarded as a legitimate vote.

The video below goes into more detail about the recent vote:

Arguments in Favor and Against Statehood

The debate is complicated–rife with historical, political, and cultural concerns. But here are some of the most popular arguments for and against Puerto Rican statehood.

Arguments in Favor of Statehood 

Those who want to see Puerto Rico become a state claim that it will be better for the area. Currently, the economic situation on the island is dire. Puerto Rico is bankrupt, and as a result, the government has had to implement austerity measures, including closing some public schools. The tax situation in Puerto Rico is also complicated–people who live there don’t have to pay federal taxes on the money they make on the island. But that means that it also doesn’t reap the financial benefits of being a state, like its share of income and corporate tax revenue. According to Frances Robles of the New York Times: “If Puerto Rico had been a state in 2011, it would have received up to $3 billion in additional funding for Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income payments alone, according to a federal Government Accountability Office report.” Statehood advocates claim that with that money, Puerto Rico wouldn’t be in such dire straits.

There’s also a political argument to be made. While Puerto Ricans can vote in party primaries, they are not able to vote in the presidential or vice presidential elections. Additionally, they have no voting representatives in Congress. Advocates of statehood argue that Puerto Rico won’t be able to effectively advocate for itself or its 3.5 million people until it has political representation on par with the rest of the United States (minus other territories and the District of Columbia). Some Puerto Ricans believe they are being treated as “second-class citizens.”

The current governor of Puerto Rico, Governor Ricardo Rosselló, supports Puerto Rican statehood. After the vote on June 11, he stated:

It will be up to this new generation of Puerto Ricans to demand and claim in Washington the end of the current improper colonial relationship, and begin a transition process to fully incorporate Puerto Rico as the next state of the Union.

What Are the Arguments Against Statehood?

There is also a range of arguments for why Puerto Rico should not become the 51st American state. Some argue that it doesn’t make sense to grant statehood to Puerto Rico because of its financial situation. It could be a burden on the rest of the United States to help the island out of its economic struggles.

There’s also an argument that Puerto Ricans don’t actually want it to become a state. The first three times the question was posed–the 1967, 1993, and 1998 votes–Puerto Ricans rejected statehood. While the 2012 vote is cited as the first time that Puerto Ricans voted for statehood, that conclusion is contested, because votes that were essentially abstentions were included. And the most recent vote, the one that garnered 97 percent in support of statehood, remains hotly contested because of the boycotts against it.

There are cultural arguments against statehood as well, including that Puerto Rico’s culture could be watered down if it is fully incorporated into the United States. Puerto Rico has some unique features as a territory of the United States–for example, it sends its own delegation to the Olympics and its own beauty queen to Miss Universe. Some argue that the island will lose part of its identity if it becomes the 51st state.

Conclusion: What’s Next?

Probably not that much. The vote that Puerto Rico held over the weekend is non-binding. Congress has the final say on making Puerto Rico a state. Puerto Rico could follow something called the “Tennessee Plan.” In that situation, Puerto Rico’s governor would appoint a delegation proportional to its population–two Senators and five Representatives–to go to Washington, D.C. and demand to be seated. This is the process by which Tennessee became recognized as a state, as well as Michigan, Iowa, California, Oregon, Kansas, and Alaska.

While the Republican Party has long supported Puerto Rican statehood, the addition of seven new colleagues on Capitol Hill, all of whom are likely to be Democrats because they will be appointed by the Democratic governor, would likely not sit well. Additionally, it’s unclear how the Republican Party’s current standard bearer, President Donald Trump, feels about potential statehood. He has tweeted negatively about not wanting to “bail out” Puerto Rico. Long story short, it seems very unlikely that there’s going to be a big change anytime soon when it comes to Puerto Rico’s lack of statehood.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Puerto Rico Become the 51st U.S. State? appeared first on Law Street.

Capping off a years-long pursuit of power, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan strengthened his rule on Sunday, as a referendum passed that changes the constitution from a parliamentary system to a presidential system. While supporters claim the new system will stabilize a government that faces growing internal and external threats, detractors say it will effectively give the Middle East yet another authoritarian leader. With the constitutional change, Erdogan could lead the country until 2029.

The referendum passed by a much narrower margin than many observers–including Erdogan–expected: 51.4 percent of the country supported the system change, while 48.6 percent opposed it. The narrow result shows just how divided Turkey is at a time of growing tensions both at home and abroad.

Domestically, the country is coping with the fall-out from last July’s coup attempt. Erdogan’s government has purged at least 100,000 workers from their jobs, and has jailed thousands of others, all accused of being followers of the exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen. Erdogan accuses Gulen, a onetime political ally, of fomenting the coup. Gulen lives in Pennsylvania.

Turkey has also gone from being a potential member of the European Union to being a thorn in its side. As the campaign for the referendum heated up in recent months, Erdogan sent over his ministers to Europe to drum up support among its millions of Turkish citizens who were eligible to vote–Germany alone has about three million Turkish citizens. The Netherlands, Germany, and others barred Turkish officials from campaigning; Erdogan likened their governments to Nazis. The relationship has soured ever since.

In addition to its domestic concerns, Turkey is a key player in the Syrian conflict. It holds small slices of territory in Syria’s northern border with Turkey, and cooperates with the U.S.-led coalition in airstrikes against Islamic State militants. Though differences remain between the U.S. and Turkey’s goals in the region–Turkey considers the Kurdish fighters, a U.S. ally, terrorists–the two remain vital partners in the fight against ISIS.

Sunday’s referendum result concerns those that see Erdogan as being on a mission to tighten his grip on the country’s politics. Since taking the presidential post in 2014, Erdogan has effectively swapped the job titles of prime minister and president. The presidential perch was designed to be ceremonial, and the prime minister–a position he held for ten years following his switch to president–was the position meant to wield power.

Among other sweeping changes, the new presidential system scraps the prime minister position altogether. It also allows a president to serve for up to two terms of five years each, with a possible extension to three terms. The president can directly appoint top public officials, including judges, and also has the authority to intervene in judicial decisions. New presidential and parliamentary elections are scheduled for November 3 2019.

Some observers saw Erdogan’s campaign as unfair–the main opposition party is calling for a recount. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) derided the tactics of the government.

“The campaign rhetoric was tarnished by some senior officials equating ‘No’ supporters with terrorist sympathizers, and in numerous cases ‘No’ supporters faced police interventions and violent scuffles at their events,” said OSEC in a  statement.

Immediately after the results came in, Erdogan gave a speech to his supporters in Istanbul. “We are enacting the most important governmental reform of our history,” he said. Erdogan also suggested that he would hold a referendum on bringing back the death penalty to Turkey, which would effectively end its bid to become an EU member-state.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey Passes Referendum Giving President Erdogan Unprecedented Power appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning thousands of Twitter users, including verified accounts like BBC North America, Forbes, and tennis star Boris Becker, saw their accounts tweeting out a message in Turkish along with images of swastikas. Someone hacked Twitter and gained access to the accounts through the third-party app Twitter Counter, an analytics service.

The message that was sent out was propaganda in support of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and translated as “#NaziGermany #NaziNetherlands, a little #OTTOMAN SLAP for you, see you on #April16th.” The tweets also contained a link to a pro-Erdogan video on Youtube.

My twitter account was hacked !!! I never posted this as I obviously don’t speak Turkish…. pic.twitter.com/G7pNuH1UFj

— Boris Becker (@TheBorisBecker) March 15, 2017

The message was accompanied by emojis of swastikas and on some accounts the hackers had changed the user’s profile pictures into a Turkish flag or other Turkish symbols. April 16 is referendum day for Turkey–voters will be deciding whether or not to give the president even more power.

The Germany and Netherlands hashtags are referring to Erdogan’s recent beef with leaders of the two countries, he recently called them “Nazi remnants” and “fascists.” Erdogan had sent government officials to countries with large Turkish populations to rally support ahead of the referendum vote, which Germany and the Netherlands resisted.

Earlier this morning our Twitter account was hacked. We’ve now deleted the hacked tweet and investigating what happened. Apologies & thanks

— AmnestyInternational (@amnesty) March 15, 2017

Twitter Counter is based in Amsterdam and was also hacked in November, when some verified accounts like PlayStation and the New Yorker started sending out spam tweets telling users how to gain more followers. “We are aware of the situation and have started an investigation into the matter,” its chief executive, Omer Ginor, said. Twitter said in a statement that the hack was limited only to accounts that use Twitter Counter. “We removed its permissions immediately. No additional accounts are impacted,” the statement said.

We identified an issue affecting a small number of users. Source was a 3rd party app and it has been resolved. No action needed by users.

— Twitter Support (@Support) March 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hackers Tweeted Swastikas and Turkish Message From Thousands of Accounts appeared first on Law Street.

As Italians prepare to vote, observers prepare for what might be another referendum shock. From the election of Donald Trump to Brexit and the initial referendum on the Colombian peace deal, national votes have had some surprising results in 2016. While the upcoming vote in Italy has some similarities to these other contentious votes, its underlying characteristics also set it apart.

On the ballot is a major set of constitutional reforms that would dramatically change how the legislature works, with the hope of increasing the stability and efficiency of the Italian government. While the vote itself would have dramatic consequences for the Italian government, the outcome might have important implications for the rise of populism in the west and financial stability in the Eurozone. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has already staked his job on the outcome of the vote and ongoing debt issues faced by Italian banks could worsen with little hope of a political fix in the short term.

What is the Referendum?

The reform package involves several major changes to the way the government functions. It would significantly change the nature and size of Italy’s upper chamber–going from 315 senators to 100 lawmakers from a mix of sources. Members of the upper chamber would no longer be elected directly, with 74 councilmen and 21 mayors elected by regional governments and the president appointing the remaining five senators. The chamber would also have significantly less power, as it would lose the ability to conduct votes of no confidence, which dissolve the government and force new elections, and would serve in more of an advisory role for new legislation. The lower chamber, the Chamber of Deputies, would gain much more influence and most new laws could be passed without approval from the other chamber, as is currently required.

While even some critics argue that major reforms are necessary, they take issue with the specific measures that have been proposed. Italy has the second largest parliament in Europe with 950 seats and the current system of “perfect bicameralism” requires both houses to agree on legislation before it is passed. The resulting gridlock has made it particularly difficult for the country to pass new legislation, even when it comes to noncontroversial laws. But those who oppose the referendum contend that these fixes are not the reforms that Italy needs, and may make the government vulnerable to authoritarian or populist takeovers.

The current checks and balances were put in place for a reason, as the post-World War II government was established in part to prevent the rise of another authoritarian figure like Mussolini. But the system remains particularly unstable, as the country has gone through 65 governments in 70 years, with only one serving the full five-year term. Critics may agree that the system is not particularly stable, but they argue that the proposed changes to the Senate go against democratic values and put more power in the hand of local governments that have had issues with corruption.

Immediate Consequences

The outcome of the referendum vote may spread beyond Italy. Some speculate that a “no” vote could lead to a crisis in the euro zone. Although there is a two-week polling blackout before the vote, polls conducted before the deadline show that the “no” vote had a sizable lead, although a considerable percentage of voters remained undecided.

If the referendum fails and Prime Minister Renzi resigns, it will likely lead to the appointment of a caretaker government to implement electoral changes for the 2018 election. The current election system uses different rules for both chambers–the new Italicum system essentially guarantees a governing majority to the largest party, but only applies to the Chamber of Deputies–that could result in two different majorities.

Other fears involve the rise of populism in the absence of Prime Minister Renzi. The anti-establishment Five Star Star movement led by former comedian Beppe Grillo has been gaining in popularity and could continue to gain popular support in the power vacuum. The movement has called for a vote to leave the euro and has been very skeptical of Italy’s EU membership in general.

The Looming Banking Crisis

Similarly, the country has had a looming banking crisis for several years that is now starting to peak. Italy was one of the hardest hit countries during the European downturn, with a seven-year recession hitting many important industries. Poor economic conditions and bank mismanagement led to a situation where one-fifth of all loans in the Italian banking system are considered troubled. While the crisis is potentially solvable, any solution requires dealing with some very difficult political decisions. Recent EU banking reforms prevent countries from bailing out their banks without “bailing-in” bondholders and shareholders to ensure that investors bear some of the losses. These laws present a significant challenge because Italian banks’ bondholders include a mix of institutional investors and retail investors. That means that bailing investors in would involve forcing losses on everyday citizens, which would create a significant political problem.

Some argue that a “no” vote would not necessarily lead to a crisis in the euro zone because the European Central Bank will be able to help in the event of a monetary crisis. However, Renzi’s resignation would make it harder for the Italian government to help its ailing banks. While a “yes” vote would put some momentum behind Renzi and his Democratic Party, the government still has a lot of political challenges ahead of it.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political and Financial Instability Looms Over Italian Referendum appeared first on Law Street.

This November, the state of Maine “could change the face of democracy in America,” according to a recent article in Foreign Policy. Lauded as the second-most important election on November 8 by author Larry Diamond, the New England state is predicted to adopt a new voting system where gubernatorial, legislative, and senatorial candidates would be required to earn the majority of votes to secure power. Originally brought forth by a citizens’ initiative with over 61,000 signatures, the Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (Question 5) is currently on the state ballot. If passed, Maine would become the first state to replace plurality with ranked-choice voting (RCV). Considering that Maine has a long history of multi-party elections, this hierarchal arrangement (where candidates are ranked on an ordinal scale) is designed to break away from today’s embedded two-party system–all while encouraging residents to vote for candidates they actually believe in. Not only could this measure set a new precedent for Maine politics, but it could also potentially motivate the rest of the country to redefine statewide elections.  

How It Works

If the referendum passes, the Pine Tree State would become the first to officially veer away from the “winner takes all approach” that has dominated American politics for decades. Also known as instant-runoff voting or preferential voting, Maine’s proposed system would require residents to rank political contenders in order of preference. Supporters of this approach believe it would ensure that the winner actually possesses broad appeal among voters. Already enforced in several U.S. cities and a number of countries (including Australia, Ireland, Malta, and New Zealand), many praise RCV for its potential to strengthen democratic institutions and empower less prominent candidates to fully participate in (and potentially win) political races.

In instances where a candidate does not yield more than half the votes during the first round of tallying, an “instant-runoff” would occur where the person with the least amount of support would be removed from the race. If a voter ranked the eliminated candidate as their top preference, then their vote would go  to their second-highest choice. By enforcing RCV, voters’ opinions won’t be diluted or forced to conform into a single vote. Depending on how many candidates are running, this process would repeat itself until somebody earns more than 50 percent of the votes.

Why is This Relevant to Maine & the Nation

Over the course of Maine’s history, plurality voting has allowed unpopular candidates to win by small margins. Since 1974, only two out of the past 11 elected governors earned a majority vote. During these gubernatorial races, five of these competitors came out victorious with less than 40 percent support. The most recent example of this trend is seen with Republican governor Paul LePage, whose “successes have been largely dependent on splitting the vote between Democrats and independents.” The incumbent governor won the election with 38 percent of the vote in 2010 and 48.2 percent in 2014.

Some also say that he represents a new era in Maine politics based on his hostility toward rival Democrats and racist remarks against people of color. Recently the public official made headlines for attributing Maine’s heroin crisis to black and Hispanic people, as well as vowing to veto every bill from Maine’s Democratic legislature until they approve his motion to eliminate the state income tax.

Seeing that LePage draws many comparisons to Donald Trump, it’s interesting to note that the Republican presidential nominee did not earn over 50 percent of the popular vote during the primaries and caucuses–instead he won the plurality of votes. Based on a report by FairVote, it’s possible that Trump wouldn’t have won the Republican contest if RCV was utilized based on simulated Super Tuesday results.

Possible Outcomes

A recent poll by the New Hampshire Survey Center saw that 48 percent of Maine voters were in favor of the referendum, while 29 percent were opposed to the measure and 23 percent were undecided. If implemented, ranked choice voting would restore the fundamental tenants of majority rule, requiring that officials earn an absolute majority (50 percent, plus one vote) to hold office. Voting “yes” on Question 5 would therefore make bipartisan elections less predictable by giving third parties more of a viable opportunity to participate in statewide general elections. Citizens would no longer feel dissuaded from “throwing away a vote” by voting for third-party candidates, which has been a common sentiment throughout this year’s presidential election. Instead of feeling obligated to vote for a candidate you don’t completely condone, RCV safeguards a diversity of public opinion.

“We need a system that works–where candidates with the best ideas, not the biggest bank accounts have a fighting chance,” said Dick Woodbury, who is part of The Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. “You should never have to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’ when there is another candidate you really like.”

For candidates to have successful campaigns, they will also be required to appeal to a wider range of constituents in order to receive more general support. Essentially this would eliminate strategic voting (voting for one candidate to ensure the other one loses) and discourage politicians from investing in negative campaigns against their competitors, according to the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine.

Critiques Against the Referendum

A prominent argument made against RCV involves its alleged complexity. After decades of utilizing plurality rule, voters may need to acquaint themselves with new procedures and logistics. Since RCV functions best with multi-party elections, this system would also require voters to be better educated about candidates and their platforms. Nonetheless, this could require voters to invest more time and effort in order to make informed decisions. Certain opponents, such as Maine Republican State Representative Heather Sirocki, also consider RCV to be unconstitutional based on Maine law. Sirocki argues that plurality is woven into the Maine constitution, saying that the election of governors and state senators or representatives require “a plurality of votes” to determine the winner. 

“Until recently, I assumed that all measures placed on the ballot were lawful. I was wrong,” wrote Sirocki in an op-ed featured in The Maine Wire. “Blatantly unconstitutional questions may appear on the ballot as long as enough valid signatures are certified by the Secretary of State.”

An additional constitutional concern for RCV is the manner in which the votes will be calculated. It is specified in the Maine constitution that votes must be tabulated at a municipal level. The implementation of RCV, however, could require a different process for counting ballots. Critics are particularly disapproving of this caveat due to the inflated levels of time and money required to facilitate a election. Enacting RCV would likely cost more than Maine’s current $248,000 budget for elections.

Conclusion

With the legal challenges surrounding Question 5 laid out on the table, the referendum would certainly necessitate an amendment to Maine’s current constitution. In the event that Maine votes “yes” on the initiative, its final application would be contingent upon a two-thirds approval of Maine’s legislature and voter approval at a state-wide referendum. As far as legality goes, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap remains confident that his state’s legal framework can be altered via statewide plebiscites or the legislative process.

“It’s a matter of opinion,” said Dunlap. “Formally, everything considered and passed either by the people directly or through their representatives in the Legislature is considered to be constitutional unless and until challenged successfully before the Law Court. The folks in the black robes have final say on constitutionality.”

There may be a ripple effect throughout the country if Mainers decide to pass Question 5. As the national election quickly approaches, many Americans seem dissatisfied (not to mention misanthropic) over this year’s outcome. Simply put, neither the Republican or Democratic nominee are well-liked among a majority of citizens. The federal incorporation of RCV, however, would alleviate two major criticisms of the American electoral system: ensuring that the winner truly has the approval of the electorate and empowering voters to support their first choice–regardless of whether or not they are truly capable of winning or not. If RCV were to be federally implemented someday, candidates like Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would possibly be better equipped to someday compete against today’s uncompromising bipartisan culture.

Resources

Ballotpedia: Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, Question 5 (2016)

Bangor Daily News: Maine Group Launching Campaign for Ranked-Choice Voting

Bangor Daily News: LePage: I’ll Veto Every Democratic Bill Until Legislature Agrees to Kill Income Tax

FairVote: Simulating Instant Runoff Flips Most Donald Trump Primary Victories

Foreign Policy: The Second-Most Important Vote on Nov. 8

League of Women Voters of Maine Education Fund: Ranked Choice Voting Basics

The Maine Wire: Ranked Choice Voting: Wrong for Maine & Blatantly Unconstitutional

New York Times: How Controversial is Gov. Paul LePage of Maine? Here’s a Partial List

Portland Press Herald: Our View: Ranked-Choice Petition First Step Towards Reform

Portland Press Herald: Ranked-Choice Voting: Costly, Complicated, Undemocratic 

Portland Press Herald: Question 5 Advocates Try to Allay Confusion About Ranked-Choice Voting

Vox: Maine Could Become the First State in the Nation to Have Ranked Choice Voting

 Editor’s Note: This article was updated on 10/31/2016 to clarify language on the possible ramifications of Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. 

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Citizens’ Initiative in Maine Calls for Ranked-Choice Voting appeared first on Law Street.

Colombia is in shock after voters rejected by a small margin a peace deal that would have put an end to the 52-year-long conflict between the government and the FARC guerillas. Negotiations had gone on for four years and President Juan Manuel Santos finally signed a peace agreement with FARC leader Timoleon Jimenez last week. The deal was widely expected to pass, and the president had said beforehand that there was no Plan B in case it didn’t.

The result is now, like Britain’s Brexit vote, widespread confusion. The vote was decided by only 0.5 percentage points, with 49.8 percent voting in favor and 50.2 percent voting against. The conflict is the longest running guerilla war in Latin America and has killed more than 260,000 people.

Colombia: 98.45% of referendum votes counted
NO 50.22%
YES 49.75%
Peace deal dead? #Colombia #ColombiaDecide pic.twitter.com/mITgtx3V37

— Derek Gatopoulos (@dgatopoulos) October 2, 2016

For President Santos this is seen as a big setback considering he spent his six years in office trying to accomplish peace with the FARC. The peace deal that he signed last week was a historic step in the right direction, but many people in Colombia think the deal was too lenient on the rebels. Even guerrilla members found guilty of massacres and kidnappings could keep their freedom and be welcomed back into in the society if they were to admit to their crimes in front of a special tribunal. The FARC would also be granted 10 seats in the Colombian congress.

According to the government this deal was the only way to get the rebels to put down their weapons. But the FARC, which started out in 1964 as a group of Marxist fighters wanting more equality and control over their land, has over the years become so involved in drug trafficking, killings, extortion, and kidnappings that people want to see real punishments. But still, almost half of the voters wanted the peace deal in order to finally start healing the country and the result was a shock to many.

Now that Colombian voters rejected the peace deal with FARC, what is next? https://t.co/efrVaoOtep pic.twitter.com/fCBXcd2eh7

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) October 3, 2016

In a televised speech on Sunday, President Santos assured everyone that the ceasefire signed by both sides would remain in effect. “I will listen to those who said ‘no’ and to those who said ‘yes.’ Finding common ground and unity is more important now than ever,” he said.

FARC Leader, Rodrigo Londoño, also said he was tired of fighting. He has spent the last four years negotiating in Cuba. He said in a statement:

The FARC reiterates its disposition to use only words as a weapon to build toward the future. With today’s result, we know that our challenge as a political party is even greater and requires more effort to build a stable and lasting peace.

Among the people happy about the result of the vote was former President Álvaro Uribe who concurred with the idea that the deal was too lenient on the rebels. But for President Santos as well as the FARC rebels who looked forward to hanging up their weapons and rejoining society, this is a defeat. The next step is to take up negotiations again and hopefully find a solution that a majority of Colombians can agree on.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colombia’s Voters Reject Peace Deal Between Government and the FARC appeared first on Law Street.

In Sunday’s episode of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver explained the concept of Brexit for the American people, and presented a message to his fellow Britons. This is what he said about the European Union:

It’s a complicated, bureaucratic, ambitious, overbearing, inspirational and consistently irritating institution–and Britain would be absolutely crazy to leave it. Especially because if it stays, it can reap all the benefits while still being a total dick about everything, and that is the British way.

Britain is voting on Thursday on whether to remain in the EU, in the so-called Brexit referendum. The matter has not been widely covered in the US, and as you may wonder–why should Americans care? The fact is that Britain leaving the EU could have a huge impact on the world economy, and considering the special relationship between Britain and the US, on America’s economy as well.

Oliver listed institutions such as the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund, and more among those who have said that leaving would have a negative impact on the British GDP. Then came a clip of the UK Justice Secretary saying he thinks people have had “enough of experts” who think they know best. “Fuck these eggheads with their studies and degrees, I get my economic forecast from clever Otis, the GDP predicting horse,” was Oliver’s ironic reply.

Among the most vocal supporters for Britain to leave the EU is the UK Independence Party, UKIP, which has the immigration issue at the top of its agenda. With refugee numbers at record highs, and increasing racism and nationalism in Europe, the situation has turned toxic. Last week pro-immigration politician Jo Cox was murdered by an assailant who seems to have had ties with white supremacist groups. He stated his name as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain” in court.

But Brits who fear immigrants may come in and steal their jobs shouldn’t be too quick to vote “leave.” As Oliver said, even if Britain were to exit the EU, it would not mean it would have complete control over their borders. As long as the nation wants to keep trading with the rest of Europe, it would have to keep abiding by some of its rules.

To cap off his tirade, Oliver said he understands the British need for telling the EU to bugger off, but suggested they do so with a profanity-laced song instead. Fast-forward to around the 14 minute mark in the above video to watch.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver to Britain: The EU is an “Irritating Institution,” But Don’t Leave appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser announced a plan to seek statehood for the District of Columbia come November through a citywide vote on the matter. She promised to propose legislation this summer that would transform the District of Columbia into the state of New Columbia.

This summer, we will propose legislation that will put statehood on the ballot in the 2016 election. #DCEmancipationDay

— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) April 15, 2016

In addition to her effort to put D.C. statehood on the ballot, Mayor Bowser is also finding other ways to challenge the federal government. For the first time since the district was created in 1790, the city will not be asking the federal government for approval of its annual tax-based budget. While this action may be a violation of the Constitution, it also sends a strong message to the federal government and the nation that D.C. is ready to be an independent state.

For years now, D.C. residents have been fighting for their right to representation in Congress. The desire for D.C. statehood hit an all-time high last fall, according to a survey conducted by the Washington Post. The survey found that three out of every four district residents claim to be upset because they do not have representation in Congress. Over seven in every 10 D.C. residents believe that Congress has too much control over the affairs of the district, especially considering we do not have a voting representative. Sixty-seven percent of D.C. residents said they would support a movement to make D.C. a state, with the hope that having representation would help the local government deal with city-wide problems.

The District of Columbia’s license plate exemplifies why people are mad that D.C. isn’t a state: taxation without representation.

WASHINGTON DC Taxation License Plate Tag – nice EB 1503 https://t.co/UBxws5ZGBz pic.twitter.com/cdJ7eG8ZII

— highly luscious prod (@mogrovejoisidr3) April 13, 2016

John Oliver also did a piece on why D.C. should be a state last August, pointing out some of the ridiculous logic behind not giving the District of Columbia statehood.

This video highlights just how crazy it is for D.C. residents to pay taxes and abide by laws without any kind of representation in Congress. In addition, Oliver points out that not only is the D.C. population bigger than two states, but it also has a larger GDP than 16 of the 50 U.S. states. Not to mention the United States is the only country in the world with a capital that is isolated and lacking in representation the way D.C. is.

Even the Dali Lama questions D.C.’s lack of statehood, noting that he wonders why citizens in the city that is the “champion of democracy, liberty, and freedom” do not have full voting rights, lamenting that this problem is “Quite strange, quite strange.”

So, why isn’t the District of Columbia a state already? Well, the original thought process behind not granting the district statehood comes from a worry the founding fathers had that the proceedings of Congress could be disrupted by people living in the district. The founders were concerned that the national government would feel unnecessarily responsible for the people of the district because of their proximity to the government. There are some other arguments against statehood, including the lack of rural residents in D.C. as well as the fact that D.C. would be a stronghold for the Democratic Party.

In the eyes of most D.C. residents, myself included, those potential cons of statehood don’t really hold up when contrasted with the utter lack of representation that the district currently has. We deserve the right to Senators and Representatives as much as any other citizen in this country and, thanks to the dedicated work of Mayor Bowser and the rest of the D.C. government, that right may be granted to us soon. We’re rooting for you, D.C.

Read More: The 51st State: What D.C. Statehood Would Mean for the Country

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post It’s Time for the District of Columbia to Become a State appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of September, the autonomous community of Catalonia, Spain held local elections for the regional legislature. The election was called for in January by Regional President Artur Mas to serve as a public referendum for Catalan independence. If pro-independence candidates received enough support, that would constitute a mandate to pursue formal independence from Spain–and they did. The two parties supporting independence received a majority of seats in the local election, validating Catalan voters’ desire for independence. But that election was municipal, and it remains unlikely that parties supporting independence will get a majority when the national elections come in November. Also, any attempt to make Catalonia an independent state is still prohibited under the Spanish Constitution. So, what does the recent vote mean for the potential for an independent Catalonia and why do they want to break away in the first place? Read on to learn about the background behind the movement and its prospects in the future.

A Brief History of Catalonia (1714-1975)

On September 11, 1714, the Catalan capital of Barcelona fell to King Philip V of Spain. In the aftermath, Spain imposed its own laws on the conquered territory, replacing the historical laws and government of Catalonia. Many believe this was an early attempt to replace the Catalan language with Spanish. Future Spanish governments would eventually ban the use of Catalan in schools, newspapers, film, and eventually (under Franco) everywhere. People caught speaking Catalan faced stiff penalties including imprisonment, fines, and beating. In the 1960s, a policy of encouraged migration from the rest of Spain was enacted by the Franco regime.

Reading books in Catalan and speaking the language in public eventually became a form of civil disobedience. September 11 became a day on which Catalans gathered to recognize their own historical heritage and further their desire for autonomy. With their own language, a history dating back over 1,000 years, and more than 7.5 million residents current residents, Catalan have a legitimate claim to independence.

The Rise of Separatist Rhetoric in Catalonia

In 1978, three years after the death of Francisco Franco–the country’s dictator from 1939 to 1975–Spain adopted a new constitution that granted some autonomy to various communities across the country, including Catalonia. However, the constitution also solidified the indivisibility of Spain, making any attempt at breaking away from the Spanish nation illegal. In fact, the constitution explicitly entrusts the military with the responsibility to keep the country whole. The post-Franco period was characterized by a swift and seamless transition to democracy, as well as Spain’s quick entry into NATO and the European Union. The transition also led to the devolution of power, giving more power to individual regions within Spain, yet Catalans remained dissatisfied with their lack of formal control.

The Spanish constitution divided the nation into 17 autonomous communities, several of which had historical and cultural legitimacy–like Basque Country and Catalonia–while others were artificially created, like Madrid. These communities form a somewhat loose confederation centered around Madrid. The Catalan people have a longstanding dissatisfaction with the current autonomous community model largely based upon the financial and historical realities of the Catalonia region.

Separatist parties in Catalonia have won a lot of support in local elections, culminating thus far in the September 2015 election, which witnessed major gains by the Junts pel Si (Together for Yes) coalition. At present, groups in favor of secession from Spain have an outright majority in the Catalan Regional Assembly. Catalan President Artur Mas has spent the last several years organizing town-by-town, non-binding referendums on Catalonia’s independence. On September 29, Mas was summoned by the Catalan high court regarding a 2014 referendum, accusing him of abuse of power, embezzlement, and disobedience. The Catalan regional government denounced the charges, claiming that they are politically motivated.

Although the 2014 referendum was non-binding, officials reported that 80 percent of voters were in favor of Catalan independence from Spain. However, the turnout for the referendum was only about 40 percent, and the  Spanish government considered the vote illegal according to the constitution.

Arguments for Catalan Independence

Catalonia’s apparent desire for independence encapsulates much more than a cultural and linguistic heritage. Historically, Catalonia has been a prosperous region for Spain, launching its own industrial revolution in the 19th century while the rest of Spain attempted to maintain an agrarian economy based off of large landholders. Catalonia demanded public money for infrastructure that would allow for its modern, industrial economy. In response, the Spanish landholding elite viewed the Catalans as leeches on their economy. Today, the consequences of social and economic disagreement have led to many anti-Catalan stereotypes. Many conservative Spaniards still view Catalonia as a region that receives and demands too much public money.

Statistically speaking, Catalonia contributes approximately 20 percent of Spain’s GDP, making it the most productive region in Spain. Catalans argue that the Spanish government takes more in taxes than it gives back in public funds. This sentiment is generally pretty inaccurate. When compared to other prosperous regions across Europe (such as Bavaria, Germany and Paris, France), Catalonia’s fiscal deficit is significantly higher than those similar regions. Catalonia remains one of the highest taxed regions in all of Europe.

When the global recession hit in 2008, these financial deficits were brought into the forum of public discourse, with Catalans believing they were paying too much to cover the rest of Spain. While the regional budget in Catalonia is €22.5 billion for 2015, a Reuters article from 2012 found that Catalonia contributed at least €12 billion to the rest of Spain in taxes. Over the last 12 years, Catalonia’s share of the national budget has fallen from 16 percent in 2003 to 9.5 in 2015. Building on an existing desire for political and cultural autonomy, recent economic trends have bolstered the movement for independence.

The Political Climate in Spain

Catalan independence is a particularly controversial subject among Spaniards. Soccer matches between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid have become open forums for either anti-Spain or anti-Catalonia sentiment, depending on who’s hosting.

Historically, two major parties have controlled the political sphere in Spain. The Socialist party and Popular Party (PP) have traditionally traded control of the government back and forth since 1978. Spain has had very little experience with compromise, as Franco maintained unilateral control before his death. Coalitions are rarely formed and winning parties often feel a mandate to govern–even without an absolute majority. Given the May 2015 elections, which led to the rise of the Podemos and Ciudadanos parties at the local level, many Spaniards believe a new era of compromise politics is coming. However, that remains to be seen as national elections won’t be held until November.

In the meantime, the inflammatory rhetoric of Spain’s historically diametric political system will continue to put a strain on both Madrid and Catalonia as tension over independence mounts.

Influences of the 2014 Scotland Referendum

The referendum for Scottish independence, which was held at the end of 2014, did not go unnoticed in Catalonia. While 55 percent of Scots rejected independence from Great Britain, Catalans came away inspired. Many people in Catalonia want Spain to offer them the option to vote, as the UK did for Scotland. The Catalans say they simply want the right to the same self-determination that the Scots received.

.@Zerohedge explains the difference, until now, between #Scotland & #Catalonia http://t.co/BZV4CiuUua #democracy pic.twitter.com/fAEkVRiLuw

— This is Catalonia (@ThIsCatalonia) September 22, 2014

Leading up to the 2014 referendum, there was a growing percentage of Scots in favor of secession. However, in polls conducted shortly before the election that number was only around 40 percent. In Catalonia, recent polls suggest that an estimated 60 percent would vote in favor of secession.

The Scottish campaign was never as strong as the Catalan campaign is now. Leading up to the referendum, most Scots were divided over whether separation from the UK would be beneficial or harmful. Additionally despite a strong sense of national identity in Scotland, even the population that defined itself as purely Scottish was not overwhelmingly in its support of independence.

Most Catalans believe their state would be better off as an independent nation than it currently is. Those who identify as purely Catalan are overwhelmingly in favor of secession.

What Comes Next?

Although national elections are slated for November, it remains to be seen whether the new parties will able to experience success on a national level. However, it seems unlikely that any third-party group will be able to win an outright majority. Spain appears headed for its first confrontation that requires meaningful compromise in domestic politics. In the meantime, independence advocates in Catalonia will likely continue pushing for independence and changes to the Spanish constitution in order to allow for legal referendums.

It’s unclear what an independent Catalonia would do for Spain or the European Union financially. What does seem clear is that if Catalonia achieves independence, it could lead to similar movements in other regions of Spain such as Galicia and Basque, and possibly the dissolution of Spain as we know it.

Conclusion

Catalan separatists have scored a major victory by winning an outright majority in their regional assembly. Non-binding referendums have been held and there appears to be a significant interest in the Catalan people to form their own country within the EU. However, the separatist movements face staunch resistance from the rest of Spain and the Spanish Constitution. The inflammatory nature of rhetoric on both sides and Spain’s own lack of experience with internal compromise will likely pose a problem for the country. Spain will face mounting tensions up until the national elections in November. The results of those elections could determine not only the fate of Spain in the coming years but also the very union upon which the nation is built.

Resources

Endboard Productions: Spanish Secret Conflict

BBC: Spanish Elections: Podemos and Ciudadanos make gains

BBC: Catalan Election: Looming Independence or Little Change in Spain?

BBC: Catalonia’s Push of independence from Spain

BBC: Catalan Independence: Mas Called to Court over 2014 Referendum

The Guardian: Scotland Independence Referendum: The View from Catalonia

EurActiv: Local Elections Send Shockwaves through Spain’s Political Establishment

New York Times: Vote Fails to Settle Dispute on Secession by Catalonia

Montserrat Guibernau: National Identity, Devolution, and Secession in Canada, Britain, and Spain

Angela K. Bourne: Europeanization and Secession: The Cases of Catalonia and Scotland

Seth Jolly: Voting for Nation or State: Determinants of Independence Support in Scotland and Catalonia

Kieran McConaghy: Scotland and Separatism: Reverberations of the Scottish Independence Referendum on Separatist Politics

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Secession in Spain: The Fight for an Independent Catalonia appeared first on Law Street.