Between the mid-20th century and the early 21st century, there was an increase in election boycotts within developing nations. Academic debates surrounding this trend have questioned whether such boycotts were aimed at drawing international scrutiny towards unjust elections or simply a way for weak political parties to maintain appearances, yet most scholars have agreed that it serves as a largely ineffective political strategy.
“Boycott elections!” was a rallying cry from Marxist ideology, which in 1968 was paired with the far less memorable “Establish rural bases and create areas of armed struggle!” from Charu Mazumdar.
A document from 1971 issued by the Marxist-Leninist Party defined the concept in a lengthy single sentence: “The primary aim of our opposition to elections is that, within the oppressive (American) nation, in the imperialist core of U.S. dominance, those elections serve as a means to create a false sense of class harmony, an illusion of peaceful discourse, reconciliations, compromises, and ‘coalitions’ as a substitute for the intensifying and expanding CLASS WAR, the conflict between the oppressor and the oppressed, which culminated in the courageous Attica Uprising, violently suppressed by the bourgeois state’s apparatus after four historical days of meticulous organization, self-defense, and prominently, witnessed by millions via television, the Revolutionary Authority of the self-organized, self-educated inmates, which stands as the most advanced sector of the oppressed class overall.”
The Marxist-Leninist Party elaborated further, concluding with, “The M.L.P. urges all revolutionary movements to seize the opportunity presented by bourgeois elections to increasingly unify the subjective and objective elements in the revolutionary assault against the decrepit, parasitic, and imperialist bourgeoisie and their minions!” This provides the theoretical foundation for the election boycott movement.
In the United States, opting to boycott a vote has never held significant political weight. There are no quorum requirements or minimum turnout protocols for elections. As Clay Shirky noted in response to recent initiatives for protest votes, “[t]he system is designed so that any option other than ‘R’ or ‘D’ effectively translates to ‘I trust the judgement of my fellow citizens.’” Thus, at least in the U.S., individuals do not boycott elections they might potentially win.
Election Boycotts in Puerto Rico
In Puerto Rico, the practice of boycotting elections emerged when the Popular Democratic Party (PDP), referred to as the “commonwealth” party, was unsuccessful in getting its proposed option for an “enhanced” or “developed” commonwealth included in the ballot. In 1998, voters were presented with the choice of remaining a U.S. territory under the term “commonwealth,” but the commonwealth party dismissed this definition, demanding instead the inclusion of “none of the above.” This option prevailed.
The Puerto Rico Herald elaborated:
Following the voting, Zogby International, a well-known public opinion polling firm, reached out to a statistically valid sample of Puerto Ricans who had selected “none of the above” on their ballot. The findings revealed that 37% of respondents indicated that their vote was in favor of “another definition of Commonwealth.” Approximately 40% noted that they chose the “none of the above” option due to reasons such as frustration over the timing of the vote during the Christmas season, anger stemming from the devastation caused by Hurricane George months earlier, dissatisfaction with the privatization of the public telephone service by the Rosselló administration, and general animosity towards Governor Pedro Rosselló. The remaining 23% expressed confusion regarding the wording of the ballot.
Pollster John Zogby summarized his findings by stating, “Considering the number of individuals who voted for the ‘none of the above’ option, alongside those who protested, and those simply puzzled by the language, the results suggest the referendum should not be regarded as valid.”
The referendum essentially lacked validity. Congress utilized the outcomes to once again claim that their hands were tied until Puerto Rico organized itself better.
“Enhanced commonwealth” was never reintegrated into the ballot, and the current state of being an unincorporated territory does not align with the desires of proponents of the commonwealth. Advocates felt their voices were ignored and often stated they felt “disenfranchised” by the situation.
Columbia professor Christina Ponsa Krauss has remarked, “Despite all their claims about a forward-thinking challenge to an outdated and unproductive dialogue, the actual impacts of ‘none of the above’ are indistinguishable from a strong affirmation of Puerto Rico’s colonial status quo.”
Once more in 2012, advocates for the “commonwealth” urged supporters to leave the status question blank on their ballots. With statehood receiving 61% of the votes, the advocates for “commonwealth” insisted on counting all blank ballots as votes in favor of enhanced commonwealth. They subsequently challenged the validity of the plebiscite results.
The Obama administration dismissed this rationale. “To clarify, the results were clear; the people of Puerto Rico desire the resolution of the status issue, and a majority opted for statehood in the second question,” stated Luis Miranda, White House Director of Hispanic Media. “It is now time for Congress to take action, and the Administration will collaborate with them to ensure that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their future.”
During 2017, advocates for the “commonwealth” strongly pushed for a boycott. Almost all voters (97%) opted for statehood, but low turnout — irrelevant in U.S. elections — once more clouded the situation. The ballots clearly indicated that blank votes would not be counted, yet supporters of the commonwealth maintained that anyone who did not cast a vote was aligned with enhanced commonwealth.
In 2020, a direct vote was held on statehood. Turnout was high, the “commonwealth” party campaigned vigorously against voting for it, and statehood received 53% of the votes. Election deniers contended that this percentage lacked sufficiency.
2024 Developments
<pIn 2024, a fresh movement to boycott the vote emerged. Both “commonwealth” and “independence” parties urged their members to abstain from participating in the referendum.
Despite the PPD’s call to leave the plebiscite ballot blank, former PPD governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá indicated he would support sovereignty in free association. “This is the option gaining traction in Congress and is being regarded differently from independence,” Acevedo Vilá stated on his show Sobre la Mesa on Radio Isla, notwithstanding some contrary evidence.
Congressional Hearing Again Confirms: Freely Associated States Are Independent, Sovereign Nations
According to El Nuevo Dia, the former governor and ex-PPD president believed that the plebiscite would undermine the statehood movement and commented that “there has been no compelling rationale or campaign to advocate for leaving ballots blank.”
Acevedo Vilá added that, despite the absence of an official party spokesperson, support for free association had reached as high as 25% among voters in polling data.
However, turnout was significant in 2024, with only 16% of ballots leaving the status question unanswered. Ultimately, the free association option only received 12% of the votes.
After a quarter-century of attempts to undermine the self-determination process through boycotts and denial of election results, might the “commonwealth” stance be losing momentum? Perhaps. Although “commonwealth” supporter Pablo José Hernández Rivera was elected as Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico in 2024, he recently wrote in an op-ed for The Hill that “Puerto Ricans are simply fatigued by the unproductive status conversation” and pledged to cease “wasting time concerning Puerto Rico’s political status.”
The post Election Boycotts in Puerto Rico Lose Steam appeared first on PUERTO RICO REPORT.
