Should the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico both join USCHESS and should they be considered states instead of seperare federations in the Fide system? They are both part of America. Thoughts?
If the Democrats get control of the Senate, Puerto Rico may become a state. That’s a very touchy subject there, though, not everybody there wants full statehood. Some want full independence.
I doubt that statehood would affect how FIDE classifies them, though, and I don’t see US Chess pushing to extend itself into Puerto Rico.
As for the US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc, we should offer them their independence, too, though I suspect the Pacific islands might prefer to maintain close ties with the US because of China.
Different international organizations have different standards. Wales and Scotland are considered distinct from England by FIDE and FIFA, but the IOC lumps them together as Great Britain.
Where is this question coming from? Is there anyone from PR trying to join their chess fed up with USChess? Or are you just making this up within your fertile brain? I suspect that if this question were worth answering, we would already have heard from PR and the USVI about it; or maybe you know something that I don’t about this?
I think both should be because they are provenances of the U.S. Also, as we all know, the Virgin Island olympiad is under investigation because some of its players lacked the credentials to qualify to play on the team. I do think PR will become a state at some point in the future. USCHESS should at least consider the idea since these territories are part of the U.S. and should be controlled by the USCHESS Federation.
The timing might finally be in favor of Puerto Rico statehood. If, and only if, that happens then it makes sense for US Chess to take a larger role in chess in Puerto Rico (necessary if FIDE says that FIDE-rated events in Puerto Rico have to be sent by the US Federation).
Below is raw political info and is only barely on topic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ri … 0(47.48%25.
Per Wikipedia (readily available though not definitive)
1967: 66% voter turnout with a majority opting to continue in commonwealth status
1998: 71% turnout with 47% for statehood
2012: about 1.798 million votes with 46% voting to continue as a territory and of the 1.364 million votes cast in case of not continuing, 1/3 of those voting opted for free association (is that something like Canada in the British Commonwealth?) while 24% did not even bother to vote on that option. Even with continuing as a territory already taken off the table only 46% of the 1.798 million ballots opted for statehood.
2017: 23% voter turnout (opponents boycotted the referendum citing biased language) with 97% of that 23% voting for statehood (the remainder split roughly equally between independence on commonwealth status)
2020: with only 80% as many ballots as in 2012, and with (for the first time) independence removed as an option, 52.5% opted for statehood and 47.5% opted for continuing as a territory
The 2020 referendum had fewer options and fewer ballots than 2017 but it did finally have a majority of the ballots cast and Congress has the authority to accept that even though the 2019 enabling act bill died in committee in Congress.
Interesting. I think it will eventually happen that PR and the U.S Virgin Islands will become part of USCHESS. Since they are technically part of the US but not part of USCHESS, should they be granted a U.S Championship Qualification spot?
I don’t see Guam, the Virgin Islands or any of the other territories and protectorates being offered statehood, just not enough population to justify it. (Conservatives might say that the only reason the Democrats are considering adding Puerto Rico and DC as states is so they get 4 more Democratic senators. But I’m old enough to remember when the Senate had more than 60 Democratic senators out of 100.)
And it is far from clear that Puerto Rican citizens want statehood. One wonders what happens if the next Congress passes it but the Puerto Rico government says ‘no thanks’.
I suspect PR as a state would remain an independent FIDE federation, like Scotland and Wales are separate from England in FIDE. (And Northern Ireland isn’t a federation at all.)
What if some state, say New Jersey, decided to “be like PR” and apply for separate FIDE membership even though it’s also a part of the US? Could it work that way?
No. The FIDE Charter requires recognition by the IOC before a political body can be considered for FIDE membership. Certain longtime FIDE federations that do not meet this standard are grandfathered in and won’t be removed from FIDE just because they are not recognized by the IOC.
Remember Puerto Rico is not a US state. And it has its own Olympic Committee which is IOC recognized.
Every one of the referendums in Puerto Rico has been flawed in some way, flaws sufficient to render all of them dubious, but that’s what happens when the political powers want a particular outcome to win.
True, but NJ was probably not the best example, just the funniest. If we can get American football recognized as an Olympic sport, then Texas might have a shot.
There is an historical anomaly in that England, Scotland, and Wales all have separate FIDE federations. Northern Ireland, however, is not represented by any federation.
Interesting. So what happens if someone from PR or the Virgin Island wins the U.S. Open? Do they qualify for the U.S. Championship or not? They are part of the U.S. even though they are considered different federations. Would that person then have to do a federation transfer then to be able to play in the U.S. Championship?
It depends. If they have a US FIDE flag then were they live doesn’t matter. If they don’t, and it’s not zonal year, and they meet residency requirements, they might be eligible. In a zonal championship year one must be eligible to represent the US Chess federation in international play to be eligible for the US Championship.