document_title: Two-party system

question_text: the current two party system in the united states is defined by which pair of parties

text: Two-party system

text: Examples[edit]

text: United States[edit]

text: There is general agreement that the United States has a two-party system; historically, there have been few instances in which third party candidates won an election. In the First Party System, only Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party were significant political parties. Toward the end of the First Party System, the Republicans dominated a one-party system (primarily under the Presidency of James Monroe). Under the Second Party System, the Democratic-Republican Party split during the election of 1824 into Adams' Men and Jackson's Men. In 1828, the modern Democratic Party formed in support of Andrew Jackson. The National Republicans were formed in support of John Quincy Adams. After the National Republicans collapsed, the Whig Party and the Free Soil Party quickly formed and collapsed. In 1854, the modern Republican Party formed from a loose coalition of former Whigs, Free Soilers and other anti-slavery activists. Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president in 1860.

text: During the Third Party System, the Republican Party was the dominant political faction, but the Democrats held a strong, loyal coalition in the Solid South. During the Fourth Party System, the Republicans remained the dominant Presidential party, although Democrats Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were both elected to two terms. In 1932, at the onset of the Fifth Party System, Democrats took firm control of national politics with the landslide victories of Franklin D. Roosevelt in four consecutive elections. Other than the two terms of Republican Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961, Democrats retained firm control of the Presidency until the mid-1960s. Since the mid-1960s, despite a number of landslides (such as Richard Nixon carrying 49 states and 61% of the popular vote over George McGovern in 1972; Ronald Reagan carrying 49 states and 58% of the popular vote over Walter Mondale in 1984), Presidential elections have been competitive between the predominant Republican and Democratic parties and no one party has been able to hold the Presidency for more than three consecutive terms, except for the elections from 1932 through 1948 when FDR won 4 elections and Truman one, both as Democrats. In the election of 2012, only 4% separated the popular vote between Barack Obama (51%) and Mitt Romney (47%), although Obama won the electoral vote by a landslide (332–206).

text: Throughout every American party system, no third party has won a Presidential election or majorities in either house of Congress. Despite that, third parties and third party candidates have gained traction and support. In the election of 1912, Theodore Roosevelt won 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes running as a Progressive. In the 1992 Presidential election, Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote but no electoral votes running as an Independent.

text: Commonwealth countries[edit]

text: In countries such as Britain, two major parties emerge which have strong influence and tend to elect most of the candidates, but a multitude of lesser parties exist with varying degrees of influence, and sometimes these lesser parties are able to elect officials who participate in the legislature. In political systems based on the Westminster system, which is a particular style of parliamentary democracy based on the British model and found in many commonwealth countries, a majority party will form the government and the minority party will form the opposition, and coalitions of lesser parties are possible; in the rare circumstance in which neither party is the majority, a hung parliament arises. Sometimes these systems are described as two-party systems but they are usually referred to as multi-party systems. There is not always a sharp boundary between a two-party system and a multi-party system.

text: Generally, a two-party system becomes a dichotomous division of the political spectrum with an ostensibly right-wing and left-wing party: the Nationalist Party vs. the Labour Party in Malta, Labor vs. Liberal/National Coalition in Australia, Republicans vs. Democrats in the United States and the Conservative Party vs. the Labour Party in the United Kingdom.

text: Other parties in these countries may have seen candidates elected to local or subnational office, however. Historian John Hicks claims that the United States has never possessed for any considerable period of time the two party system in its pure and undefiled form.[14]

text: In some governments, certain chambers may resemble a two-party system and others a multi-party system. For example, the politics of Australia are largely two-party (the Liberal/National Coalition is often considered a single party at a national level due to their long-standing alliance in forming government and additionally rarely compete for the same seat) for the Australian House of Representatives, which is elected by instant-runoff voting, known within Australia as preferential voting. However, third parties are more common in the Australian Senate, which uses a proportional voting system more amenable to minor parties.

text: In the politics of Canada, while having a multiparty system federally and in the largest provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Alberta, many of the provinces have effectively become two-party systems in which only two parties regularly get members elected. Examples include British Columbia (where the battles are between the New Democratic Party and the BC Liberals), Saskatchewan (between the Saskatchewan Party and New Democratic Party), New Brunswick (between the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives) and Prince Edward Island (between Liberals and Progressive Conservatives).

text: India[edit]

text: India also shows characteristics of a two party system with the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)[15] and National Democratic Alliance (NDA)[16] as the two main players. It is to be noted that both UPA and NDA are not two political parties but alliances of several smaller parties. Other smaller parties not aligned with either NDA or UPA exist,[17] and overall command about 20% of the 2009 seats in the Lok Sabha and had further increased to 28% in 2014 general elections

text: Malta[edit]

text: Malta is somewhat unusual in that while the electoral system is single transferable vote (STV), traditionally associated with proportional representation, minor parties have not earned much success. Politics is dominated between the centre-left Labour Party and the centre-right Nationalist Party, with no third parties winning seats in Parliament between 1962 and 2017.[18]

text: Other examples[edit]

text: The English speaking countries of the Caribbean while inheriting their basic political system from Great Britain have become two party systems. The politics of Jamaica are between the People's National Party and the Jamaica Labour Party. The politics of Guyana are between the People's Progressive Party and APNU which is actually a coalition of smaller parties. The politics of Trinidad and Tobago are between the People's National Movement and the People's Partnership which is also a coalition. The Politics of Belize are between the United Democratic Party and the People's United Party. The Politics of the Bahamas are between the Progressive Liberal Party and the Free National Movement. The politics of Barbados are between the Democratic Labour Party and the Barbados Labour Party.

text: The politics of Zimbabwe are effectively a two party system between the Robert Mugabe led Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front and the opposition coalition Movement for Democratic Change.

text: South Korea has a multi-party system[19] that has sometimes been described as having characteristics of a two-party system.[20]

text: Furthermore, the Lebanese Parliament is mainly made up of two bipartisan alliances. Although both alliances are made up of several political parties on both ends of the political spectrum the two way political situation has mainly arisen due to strong ideological differences in the electorate.[21] Once again this can mainly be attributed to the winner takes all thesis.

text: Historically, Brazil had a two-party system for most of its military dictatorship (1964–1985): the military junta banned all existing parties when it took power and created a pro-government party, the National Renewal Alliance and an official opposition party, the Brazilian Democratic Movement. The two parties were dissolved in 1979, when the regime allowed other parties to form.[22]

text: A report in The Christian Science Monitor in 2008 suggested that Spain was moving towards a "greater two-party system" while acknowledging that Spain has "many small parties".[23] However a 2015 article published by WashingtonPost.com written by academic Fernando Casal Bértoa noted the decline in support for the two main parties, the People's Party (PP) and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) in recent years, with these two parties winning only 52 percent of the votes in that year's regional and local elections. He explained this as being due to the Spanish economic crisis, a series of political corruption scandals and broken campaign promises. He argued that the emergence of the new Citizens and Podemos parties would mean the political system would evolve into a two-bloc system, with an alliance of the PP and Citizens on the right facing a leftist coalition of PSOE, Podemos and the United Left.[24]

text: Comparisons with other party systems[edit]

text: Two-party systems can be contrasted with:

text:
Multi-party systems. In these, the effective number of parties is greater than two but usually fewer than five; in a two-party system, the effective number of parties is two (according to one analysis, the actual average number of parties varies between 1.7 and 2.1.)[25] The parties in a multi-party system can control government separately or as a coalition; in a two-party system, however, coalition governments rarely form. Examples of nations with multi-party systems include Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Taiwan.
One-party systems or dominant-party systems happen in nations where no more than one party is codified in law and/or officially recognized, or where alternate parties are restricted by the dominant party which wields power. Examples include rule by the Communist Party of China and the People's Action Party of Singapore.

tag: ul

text: Causes[edit]

text: There are several reasons why, in some systems, two major parties dominate the political landscape. There has been speculation that a two-party system arose in the United States from early political battling between the federalists and anti-federalists in the first few decades after the ratification of the Constitution, according to several views.[2][26] In addition, there has been more speculation that the winner-takes-all electoral system as well as particular state and federal laws regarding voting procedures helped to cause a two-party system.[2]

text: Political scientists such as Maurice Duverger[27] and William H. Riker claim that there are strong correlations between voting rules and type of party system. Jeffrey D. Sachs agreed that there was a link between voting arrangements and the effective number of parties. Sachs explained how the first-past-the-post voting arrangement tended to promote a two-party system:

text: The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as Duverger's Law. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections.

text: Consider a system in which voters can vote for any candidate from any one of many parties. Suppose further that if a party gets 15% of votes, then that party will win 15% of the seats in the legislature. This is termed proportional representation or more accurately as party-proportional representation. Political scientists speculate that proportional representation leads logically to multi-party systems, since it allows new parties to build a niche in the legislature:

text: Because even a minor party may still obtain at least a few seats in the legislature, smaller parties have a greater incentive to organize under such electoral systems than they do in the United States.

text: In contrast, a voting system that allows only a single winner for each possible legislative seat is sometimes termed a plurality voting system or single-winner voting system and is usually described under the heading of a winner-takes-all arrangement. Each voter can cast a single vote for any candidate within any given legislative district, but the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, although variants, such as requiring a majority, are sometimes used. What happens is that in a general election, a party that consistently comes in third in every district is unlikely to win any legislative seats even if there is a significant proportion of the electorate favoring its positions. This arrangement strongly favors large and well–organized political parties that are able to appeal to voters in many districts and hence win many seats, and discourages smaller or regional parties. Politically oriented people consider their only realistic way to capture political power is to run under the auspices of the two dominant parties.[2]

text: In the U.S., forty-eight states have a standard winner-takes-all electoral system for amassing presidential votes in the Electoral College system.[29] The winner-takes-all principle applies in presidential elections, since if a presidential candidate gets the most votes in any particular state, all of the electoral votes from that state are awarded. In all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, the presidential candidate winning a plurality of votes wins all of the electoral votes, a practice called the unit rule.[2]

text: Duverger concluded that "plurality election single-ballot procedures are likely to produce two-party systems, whereas proportional representation and runoff designs encourage multipartyism."[27] He suggested there were two reasons why winner-takes-all systems leads to a two-party system. First, the weaker parties are pressured to form an alliance, sometimes called a fusion, to try to become big enough to challenge a large dominant party and, in so doing, gain political clout in the legislature. Second, voters learn, over time, not to vote for candidates outside of one of the two large parties since their votes for third party candidates are usually ineffectual.[2] As a result, weaker parties are eliminated by voters over time. Duverger pointed to statistics and tactics to suggest that voters tended to gravitate towards one of the two main parties, a phenomenon which he called polarization, and tend to shun third parties.[6] For example, some analysts suggest that the Electoral College system in the United States, by favoring a system of winner-takes-all in presidential elections, is a structural choice favoring only two major parties.[30]

text: Gary Cox suggested that America's two-party system was highly related with economic prosperity in the country:

text: The bounty of the American economy, the fluidity of American society, the remarkable unity of the American people, and, most important, the success of the American experiment have all mitigated against the emergence of large dissenting groups that would seek satisfaction of their special needs through the formation of political parties.

text: An effort in 2012 by centrist groups to promote ballot access by Third Party candidates called Americans Elect spent $15 million to get ballot access but failed to elect any candidates.[31] The lack of choice in a two-party model in politics has often been compared to the variety of choices in the marketplace.

text: Politics has lagged our social and business evolution ... There are 30 brands of Pringles in our local grocery store. How is it that Americans have so much selection for potato chips and only two brands—and not very good ones—for political parties?

text: Third parties[edit]

text: Third parties, meaning a party other than one of the two dominant parties, are possible in two-party systems, but they are often unlikely to exert much influence by gaining control of legislatures or by winning elections.[2] While there are occasional opinions in the media expressed about the possibility of third parties emerging in the United States, for example, political insiders such as the 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson think the chances of one appearing in the early twenty-first century is remote.[32] A report in The Guardian suggested that American politics has been "stuck in a two-way fight between Republicans and Democrats" since the Civil War, and that third-party runs had little meaningful success.[33]

text: Third parties in a two-party system can be:

text:
Built around a particular ideology or interest group
Split off from one of the major parties or
Focused on a charismatic individual.[32]

text: When third parties are built around an ideology which is at odds with the majority mindset, many members belong to such a party not for the purpose of expecting electoral success but rather for personal or psychological reasons.[2] In the U.S., third parties include older ones such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party and newer ones such as the Pirate Party.[2][34] Many believe that third parties don't affect American politics by winning elections, but they can act as "spoilers" by taking votes from one of the two major parties.[2] They act like barometers of change in the political mood since they push the major parties to consider their demands.[2] An analysis in New York Magazine by Ryan Lizza in 2006 suggested that third parties arose from time to time in the nineteenth century around single-issue movements such as abolition, women's suffrage, and the direct election of senators, but were less prominent in the twentieth century.[35]

text: A so-called third party in the United Kingdom are the Liberal Democrats. In the 2010 election, the Liberal Democrats received 23% of the votes but only 9% of the seats in the House of Commons. While electoral results do not necessarily translate into legislative seats, the Liberal Democrats can exert influence if there is a situation such as a hung parliament. In this instance, neither of the two main parties (at present, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party) have sufficient authority to run the government. Accordingly, the Liberal Democrats can in theory exert tremendous influence in such a situation since they can ally with one of the two main parties to form a coalition. This happened in the Coalition government of 2010. Yet in that more than 13% of the seats in the British House of Commons are held in 2011 by representatives of political parties other than the two leading political parties of that nation, contemporary Britain is considered by some to be a multi-party system, and not a two-party system.[36] The two party system in the United Kingdom allows for other parties to exist, although the main two parties tend to dominate politics; in this arrangement, other parties are not excluded and can win seats in Parliament. In contrast, the two party system in the United States has been described as a duopoly or an enforced two-party system, such that politics is almost entirely dominated by either the Republicans or Democrats, and third parties rarely win seats in Congress.[37]

text: Advantages[edit]

text: Some historians have suggested that two-party systems promote centrism and encourage political parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate. It can lead to political stability[4][not in citation given] which leads, in turn, to economic growth. Historian Patrick Allitt of the Teaching Company suggested that it is difficult to overestimate the long term economic benefits of political stability. Sometimes two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party systems because they are simpler to govern, with less fractiousness and greater harmony, since it discourages radical minor parties,[4] while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to hung parliaments.[38] Italy, with a multi-party system, has had years of divisive politics since 2000, although analyst Silvia Aloisi suggested in 2008 that the nation may be moving closer to a two-party arrangement.[39] The two-party has been identified as simpler since there are fewer voting choices.[4] One analyst suggested the two-party system, in contrast with proportional representation, prevented excessive government interference with economic policy.[8]

text: Disadvantages[edit]

text: Two-party systems have been criticized for downplaying alternative views,[4][5] being less competitive,[8] encouraging voter apathy since there is a perception of fewer choices,[4] and putting a damper on debate[5] within a nation. In a proportional representation system, lesser parties can moderate policy since they are not usually eliminated from government.[4] One analyst suggested the two-party approach may not promote inter-party compromise but may encourage partisanship.[5] In The Tyranny of the Two-party system, Lisa Jane Disch criticizes two-party systems for failing to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot. She wrote:

text: Herein lies the central tension of the two–party doctrine. It identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to Schattschneider's analogy between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers? ... This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United States citizens to accept two–party contests as a condition of electoral democracy.

text: There have been arguments that the winner-take-all mechanism discourages independent or third-party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views.[8][41] Ross Perot's former campaign manager wrote that the problem with having only two parties is that the nation loses "the ability for things to bubble up from the body politic and give voice to things that aren't being voiced by the major parties."[32] One analyst suggested that parliamentary systems, which typically are multi-party in nature, lead to a better "centralization of policy expertise" in government.[42] Multi-party governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions.[43] While there is considerable debate about the relative merits of a constitutional arrangement such as that of the United States versus a parliamentary arrangement such as Britain, analysts have noted that most democracies around the world have chosen the British multi-party model.[43] Analyst Chris Weigant of the Huffington Post wrote that "the parliamentary system is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the American system".[43] After an election in which the party changes, there can be a "polar shift in policy-making" when voters react to changes.[4]

text: Political analyst A. G. Roderick, writing in his book Two Tyrants, argued that the two American parties, the Republicans and Democrats, are highly unpopular in 2015, and are not part of the political framework of state governments, and do not represent 47% of the electorate who identify themselves as "independents".[44] He makes a case that the American president should be elected on a non-partisan basis,[45][44][46] and asserts that both political parties are "cut from the same cloth of corruption and corporate influence."[47]

text: History[edit]

text: Beginnings of parties in Britain[edit]

text: The two-party system, in the sense of the looser definition, where two parties dominate politics but in which third parties can elect members and gain some representation in the legislature, can be traced to the development of political parties in the United Kingdom. There was a division in English politics at the time of the Civil War and Glorious Revolution in the late 17th century.[48] The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Parliament.[49] In the following century, the Whig party's support base widened to include emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants.

text: The basic matters of principle that defined the struggle between the two factions, were concerning the nature of constitutional monarchy, the desirability of a Catholic king,[50][page needed] the extension of religious toleration to nonconformist Protestants, and other issues that had been put on the liberal agenda through the political concepts propounded by John Locke,[51] Algernon Sidney and others.[52]

text: Vigorous struggle between the two factions characterised the period from the Glorious Revolution to the 1715 Hanoverian succession, over the legacy of the overthrow of the Stuart dynasty and the nature of the new constitutional state. This proto two-party system fell into relative abeyance after the accession to the throne of George I and the consequent period of Whig supremacy under Robert Walpole, during which the Tories were systematically purged from high positions in government. However, although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, they still retained a measure of party cohesion under William Wyndham and acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party.

text: Emergence of the two-party system in Britain[edit]

text: The old Whig leadership dissolved in the 1760s into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs[53] under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the two party system was centred on a set of core principles held by both sides and that allowed the party out of power to remain as the Loyal Opposition to the governing party.[54]

text: A genuine two-party system began to emerge,[55] with the accession to power of William Pitt the Younger in 1783 leading the new Tories, against a reconstituted "Whig" party led by the radical politician Charles James Fox.[56][57][58]

text: The two party system matured in the early 19th century era of political reform, when the franchise was widened and politics entered into the basic divide between conservatism and liberalism that has fundamentally endured up to the present. The modern Conservative Party was created out of the "Pittite" Tories by Robert Peel, who issued the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles of Conservatism; - the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". Meanwhile, the Whigs, along with free trade Tory followers of Robert Peel, and independent Radicals, formed the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle-class, under the long leadership of William Ewart Gladstone. The two party system had come of age at the time of Gladstone and his Conservative rival Benjamin Disraeli after the 1867 Reform Act.[59]

text: History of American political parties[edit]

text: Although the Founding Fathers of the United States did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan,[60] early political controversies in the 1790s saw the emergence of a two-party political system, the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party, centred on the differing views on federal government powers of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.[61][62] However, a consensus reached on these issues ended party politics in 1816 for a decade, a period commonly known as the Era of Good Feelings.[63]

text: Partisan politics revived in 1829 with the split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay. The former evolved into the modern Democratic Party and the latter was replaced with the Republican Party as one of the two main parties in the 1850s.


document_title: Independence movement in Puerto Rico

question_text: when did puerto rico gain their independence from spain

root

text: Independence movement in Puerto Rico

text: Independence from Spain[edit]

text: Revolts by the Taíno[edit]

text: Some Modern Puerto Rican independence movements have claimed historic connection to the 16th century and the Taíno rebellion of 1511 led by Agüeybaná II. In this revolt, Agüeybaná II, the most powerful cacique at the time, together with Urayoán, cacique of Añasco, organized a revolt in 1511 against the Spaniards in the southern and western parts of the island. He was joined by Guarionex, cacique of Utuado, who attacked the village of Sotomayor (present-day Aguada) and killed 80 Spanish colonists.[3] Juan Ponce de León led the Spaniards in a series of offensives that culminated in the Battle of Yagüecas.[4] Agüeybaná II's people, who were armed only with spears, bows, and arrows, were no match for the guns of the Spanish forces, and Agüeybaná II was shot and killed in the battle.[5] The revolt ultimately failed, and many Taíno either committed suicide or fled the island.[6][7]

tag: p

text: Puerto Ricans revolt[edit]

text: Several revolts against the Spanish rulers by the native born, or Criollos, occurred in the 19th century. These include the conspiracy at San Germán in 1809,[8] and the uprisings of people in Ciales, San Germán and Sabana Grande in 1898.[9]

text: Many Puerto Ricans became inspired by the ideals of Simón Bolívar to liberate South America from Spanish rule. Bolívar sought to create a federation of Latin American nations, to include Puerto Rico and Cuba. Brigadier General Antonio Valero de Bernabé, also known as "The Liberator from Puerto Rico", fought for the independence of South America together with Bolívar; he also wanted an independent Puerto Rico.

text: María de las Mercedes Barbudo, the first female Puerto Rican Independentista, joined forces with the Venezuelan government, under the leadership of Simón Bolívar, to lead an insurrection against the Spanish colonial forces in Puerto Rico.[10][11] The Spanish occupation forces were the object of more than thirty conspiracies. Some, like the Lares uprising, the riots and sedition of 1897 and the Secret Societies at the end of the 19th century, became popular rebellions. The most widespread popular revolts, however, were the one in Lares in 1868, and the one in Yauco in 1897.

text: In 1868, the Grito de Lares took place, in which revolutionaries occupied the town of Lares and declared the Republic of Puerto Rico. Ramón Emeterio Betances was the leader of this revolt. Earlier, Segundo Ruiz Belvis and Betances had founded the Comité Revolucionario de Puerto Rico (Revolutionary Committee of Puerto Rico) from their exile in the Dominican Republic. Betances wrote several Proclamas, or statements attacking the exploitation of the Puerto Ricans by the Spanish colonial system, and called for immediate insurrection. These statements were rapidly circulated throughout the island as local dissident groups began to organize.

text: Most dissidents were Criollos (born on the island). The critical state of the economy, along with the increasing repression imposed by the Spanish, served as catalysts for the rebellion. The stronghold of the movement were towns located on the mountains of the west of the island. The rebels looted local stores and offices owned by peninsulares (Spanish-born residents) and took over the city hall. They took as prisoners Spanish merchants and local government officials. The revolutionaries placed their revolutionary flag on the high altar of the church to signify that the revolution had begun.[12] The Republic of Puerto Rico was proclaimed, and Francisco Ramírez Medina was proclaimed interim presidency. The revolutionaries offered immediate freedom to any slave who would join them.

text: In the next town, San Sebastián del Pepino, the Grito de Lares revolutionaries encountered heavy resistance from the Spanish militia and retreated to Lares. The Spanish militia rounded up the rebels and quickly brought the insurrection to an end. The government imprisoned some 475 rebels, and a military court imposed the death penalty, for treason and sedition, on all the prisoners. But in Madrid, Eugenio María de Hostos and other prominent Puerto Ricans were successful in interceding, and the national government ordered a general amnesty and release of all the prisoners. Numerous leaders, such as Betances, Rojas, Lacroix, Aurelio Méndez and others, were sent into exile.[13]

text: 1896–1897 revolt[edit]

text: In 1896, a group of residents of Yauco who supported independence joined forces to overthrow the Spanish government in the island. The group was led by Antonio Mattei Lluberas, a wealthy coffee plantation owner, and Mateo Mercado. Later that year, the local Civil Guard discovered their plans and arrested all those involved. They were soon released and allowed to return home.[14]

text: In 1897, Lluberas traveled to New York City and visited the Puerto Rican Revolutionary Committee, which included the exiled group from the 1868 Grito de Lares revolt. They made plans for a major coup in Puerto Rico.[15] Lluberas returned to Puerto Rico with a Puerto Rican flag to be flown at such coup.[16] The Mayor of Yauco, Francisco Lluch Barreras, learned of the planned uprising, and notified the island's Spanish governor. When Fidel Velez, one of the separatist leaders, learned that the word was out, he met with other leaders and forced them to begin the insurrection immediately.[16]

text: On March 24, 1897, Velez and his men marched towards Yauco, planning to attack the barracks of the Spanish Civil Guard, to gain control of their arms and ammunition. At arrival, they were ambushed by Spanish forces. When a firefight broke out, the rebels quickly retreated. On March 26, a group headed by Jose Nicolas Quiñones Torres and Ramon Torres fought Spanish colonial forces (mostly island men) in a barrio called Quebradas of Yauco, but were overcome.[16] The government arrested more than 150 rebels, charged them with various crimes against the state, and sent them to prison in the City of Ponce.[17] These attacks became known as the Intentona de Yauco (Attempted Coup of Yauco). It was the first time that the flag of Puerto Rico was flown on the island.[18][19]

text: Velez fled to St. Thomas where he lived in exile. Mattei Lluberas went into exile in New York City, joining a group known as the "Puerto Rican Commission".[17]

text: Spanish Charter of Autonomy[edit]

text: After four hundred years of colonial rule by the Spanish Empire, Puerto Rico finally received its sovereignty in 1897 through a Carta de Autonomía (Charter of Autonomy). It was signed by Spanish Prime Minister Práxedes Mateo Sagasta and ratified by the Spanish Cortes.[20][21]

text: US Annexation and response[edit]

text: A few months later, the United States claimed ownership of the island as part of the Treaty of Paris of 1898, which concluded the Spanish–American War, which they had won that year. The Puerto Rican Nationalist Party formed in reaction, and has always held that, by international law, the Spanish had no authority under the Treaty of Paris to cede the island, which was no longer theirs.[20][22] The Nationalist movement attracted supporters following the repressions by the island government in the Ponce and the Río Piedras massacre.[23] The profits generated by this one-sided arrangement were enormous, as US corporations developed large plantations.[24]

text: Several years after leaving office, in 1913 Charles H. Allen, the first civilian U.S. governor of Puerto Rico, succeeded to the presidency of the American Sugar Refining Company after serving as treasurer.[25] He resigned in 1915, but stayed on the board. The company operated the largest sugar-refining operation in the world[26] and was later renamed as the Domino Sugar company.[27] According to historian Federico Ribes Tovar, Charles Allen leveraged his governorship of Puerto Rico into a controlling interest over the entire Puerto Rican economy through Domino Sugar.[22][24]

text: American professor and activist Noam Chomsky argued in the late 20th century that, after 1898 "Puerto Rico was turned into a plantation for U.S. agribusiness, later an export platform for taxpayer-subsidized U.S. corporations, and the site of major U.S. military bases and petroleum refineries."[28] By 1930, over 40 percent of all the arable land in Puerto Rico had been converted into sugar plantations owned by Domino Sugar and U.S. banking interests. These bank syndicates also owned the insular postal system, the coastal railroad, and the San Juan international seaport.[22][24][29]

text: The annexation of Puerto Rico was seen as a part of American "Manifest destiny." [30] American governments supported American corporations with military force on occasion.

text: Seeking independence from the United States[edit]

text: After Puerto Rico was invaded during the Spanish–American War in 1898, Manuel Zeno Gandía traveled to Washington, D.C. where, together with Eugenio María de Hostos, he proposed the idea of independence for Puerto Rico. The men were disappointed when their ideas were rejected by the US government and the island was organized as a US territory. Zeno Gandia returned to the island and continued as an activist.

text: A number of leaders, including a well-known intellectual and legislator called José de Diego, sought independence from the United States via political accommodation. On June 5, 1900, President William McKinley named De Diego, together with Rosendo Matienzo Cintrón, José Celso Barbosa, Manuel Camuñas, and Andrés Crosas to an Executive Cabinet under U.S.-appointed Governor Charles H. Allen. The Executive Cabinet also included six American members.[31]

text: De Diego resigned from the position in order to pursue independence. In 1904, he co-founded the Unionist Party along with Luis Muñoz Rivera, Rosendo Matienzo Cintrón and Antonio R. Barceló.[32] De Diego was elected to the House of Delegates, the only locally elected body of government then allowed by the U.S., over which De Diego presided from 1904 to 1917. The House of Delegates was subject to the U.S. President's veto power and unsuccessfully voted for the island's right to independence and self-government. It petitioned against imposition of U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans in 1917, but the US granted citizenship to island residents. Despite these failures, De Diego became known as the "Father of the Puerto Rican Independence Movement."[33]

text: The newly created Puerto Rico Union Party advocated allowing voters to choose among non-colonial options, including annexation, an independent protectorate, and full autonomy. Another new party called the Puerto Rico Independence Party emerged, founded by Rosendo Matienzo Cintrón in 1912, which promoted Puerto Rico's independence. That same year, Scott Colón, Zeno Gandía, Matienzo Cintrón, and Luis Lloréns Torres wrote a manifesto for independence.[34] The Independence Party was the first party in the history of the island to openly support independence from the United States as part of its platform.[31]

text: Through the 1930s, U.S. banking interests and corporations expanded their control of lands in Puerto Rico, Central America and certain states of South America.[22] By 1930 the U.S.-based United Fruit Company also owned more than one million acres of land in Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Mexico and Cuba.[35] By the early 1940s, the United Fruit Company owned 50 percent of all private land in Honduras[35] and 75 percent of all private land in Guatemala. In Guatemala it also owned most of the infrastructure, such as roads, power stations and phone lines, as well as the country's only Pacific seaport and all of its railroads.[36]

text: Formation of the Nationalist Party[edit]

text:
Part of a series on the

Puerto Rican
Nationalist Party

Flag of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party

Events and revolts[show]

Ponce massacre
Río Piedras massacre
Cadets of the Republic
Gag Law (Ley de la Mordaza)
Puerto Rican Nationalist Party Revolts of the 1950s
Jayuya Uprising
San Juan Nationalist revolt
Utuado Uprising
Truman assassination attempt
U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1954)

Nationalist leaders[show]

Pedro Albizu Campos
José S. Alegría
Casimiro Berenguer
Blanca Canales
Rafael Cancel Miranda
José Coll y Cuchí
Oscar Collazo
Rosa Collazo
Juan Antonio Corretjer
Julia de Burgos
Raimundo Díaz Pacheco
Lolita Lebrón
Tomás López de Victoria
Hugo Margenat
Francisco Matos Paoli
Ruth Mary Reynolds
Isolina Rondón
Vidal Santiago Díaz
Clemente Soto Vélez
Griselio Torresola
Antonio Vélez Alvarado
Carlos Vélez Rieckehoff
Olga Viscal Garriga

Notable nationalists[show]

Margot Arce de Vázquez
Elías Beauchamp
Nemesio Canales
Carmelo Delgado Delgado
Andres Figueroa Cordero
Irvin Flores
Isabel Freire de Matos
Hiram Rosado
Isabel Rosado
José Ferrer Canales
René Marqués
Pedro "Davilita" Ortiz Dávila
Germán Rieckehoff
Helen Rodríguez Trías
Daniel Santos
Teófilo Villavicencio Marxuach
Félix Benítez Rexach

v
t
e

tag: table

text: The main political parties in Puerto Rico have supported a continuing relationship with the United States and been supported by the electorate. By the 1940s voters had elected a majority of PPD members in the legislature. In 1952 they voted by nearly 82% in support of the new constitution of the Estado Libre Associado or Commonwealth. Sixty years later, in 2012 a majority of those who voted on the second question of a referendum, to indicate what type of arrangement they preferred, voted to seek admission as a state into the United States. 61.16% voted for statehood, 33.34% voted for free association and 5.49% voted for independence. Hundreds of thousands of voters abstained from the question, so the proportion of voters was actually 45% rather than a majority.[37]

text: In 1919, Puerto Rico had two major organizations that supported independence: the Nationalist Youth and the Independence Association. Also in 1919, José Coll y Cuchí, a member of the Union Party of Puerto Rico, left the party and formed the Nationalist Association of Puerto Rico. In 1922, these three political organizations joined forces and formed the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, with Coll y Cuchi as party president. The party's chief goal was to achieve independence from the United States. In 1924 Dr. Pedro Albizu Campos joined the party and was named vice-president.

text: On May 11, 1930, Dr. Pedro Albizu Campos was elected president of the Nationalist Party. Under his leadership, in the 1930s the party became the largest independence movement in Puerto Rico. But, after disappointing electoral outcomes and strong repression by the territorial police, by the mid-1930s Albizu opted against the electoral political process. He advocated violent revolution as the means to achieve independence.

text: In 1932, the pro-independence Liberal Party of Puerto Rico was founded by Antonio R. Barceló. The Liberal Party's political agenda was the same as that of the original Union Party, urging independence for Puerto Rico.[38] Among those who joined him in the "new" party were Felisa Rincón de Gautier and Ernesto Ramos Antonini.

text: By 1932 Luis Muñoz Rivera's son, Luis Muñoz Marín, had also joined the Liberal Party. Muñoz Marín was eventually the first democratically elected Governor of Puerto Rico.

text: During the 1932 elections, the Liberal Party faced the Alliance, then a coalition of the Republican Party of Puerto Rico and Santiago Iglesias Pantin's Socialist Party. Barceló and Muñoz Marín were both elected Senators. By 1936, differences between Muñoz Marín and Barceló began to surface, as well as between those followers who considered Muñoz Marín the true leader and those who considered Barceló as their leader.[39]

text: Muñoz Marín and his followers, who included Felisa Rincón de Gautier and Ernesto Ramos Antonini, held an assembly in the town of Arecibo to found the Partido Liberal, Neto, Auténtico y Completo (Clear, Authentic and Complete Liberal Party), later named the People's Democratic Party (PPD for Spanish name).

text:
External video

 Newsreel scenes of the Ponce Massacre here

text: During the 1930s and 1940s, Nationalist partisans took part in violent incidents:

text:
On April 6, 1932, Nationalist partisans marched into the Capitol building in San Juan to protest the legislative proposal to approve the present Puerto Rican flag, the official flag of the insular government. Nationalists preferred the flag used during the Grito de Lares.
On October 24, 1935, a confrontation with police at University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras campus, killed four Puerto Rican Nationalist Party supporters and one policeman. The event came to be known as the Río Piedras massacre.
On February 23, 1936, Colonel Elisha Francis Riggs, formerly of the US Army and the highest police officer in the island, was assassinated in retaliation for the Río Piedras events by Nationalists Hiram Rosado and Elías Beauchamp. Rosado and Beauchamp were arrested, and summarily executed without a trial at the police headquarters in San Juan.[40]

text:
On March 21, 1937, a march in Ponce by the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, organized to commemorate the ending of slavery in Puerto Rico, resulted in the deaths of 17 unarmed citizens and 2 policemen at the hands of the territorial police, an event known as the Ponce massacre.
In 1936, the U.S. Senator Millard Tydings presented a legislative proposal to grant independence to Puerto Rico, but many people believed that it had unfavorable economic conditions.[41][42] Barceló and the Liberal Party favored the Bill, because it would give Puerto Rico its independence; Muñoz Marín opposed the Bill because he wanted Puerto Rico's immediate independence but with favorable conditions.[39]
On July 25, 1938, shots were fired at the US colonial governor, Blanton Winship during a parade; they killed Police Colonel Luis Irizarry. Soon afterward, two Nationalist partisans attempted to assassinate Robert Cooper, judge of the Federal Court in Puerto Rico. Winship tried to suppress the Nationalists.
On June 10, 1948, the United States-appointed Governor of Puerto Rico, Jesús T. Piñero, signed into law a bill passed by the Puerto Rican Senate, which was controlled by elected PPD representatives. It prohibited discussion of independence, fighting for liberation of the island, and significantly curtailed other Puerto Rican independence activities. The Ley de la Mordaza (Gag Law) or Law 53 as it was officially known, made it illegal to display the Puerto Rican Flag, or sing a patriotic song.

text: Events under Commonwealth status[edit]

text:
External video

 Newsreel scenes in Spanish of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party revolts of the 1950s here

text: The Puerto Rican independence movement took new measures after the Free Associate State was authorized. On October 30, 1950, with the new autonomist Commonwealth status about to go into effect, multiple Nationalist uprisings occurred, in an effort to focus world attention on the Movement's dissatisfaction with the new commonwealth status.

text: They catalyzed roughly a dozen skirmishes throughout Puerto Rico including Peñuelas,[43] the Jayuya Uprising,[44] the Utuado Uprising, the San Juan Nationalist revolt, and other shootouts in Mayagüez, Naranjito, and Arecibo. During the 1950 Jayuya Uprising, Blanca Canales declared Puerto Rico a free republic. Two days after the creation of the Commonwealth, two Nationalists attempted to assassinate U.S. President Harry S. Truman in Washington, D.C.

text: Acknowledging the importance of the question of Puerto Rican status, Truman supported a plebiscite in Puerto Rico in 1952 on the new constitution, to determine the status of the island's relationship to the U.S.[45] The people voted by nearly 82% in favor of the new constitution and Free Associated State, or Commonwealth.[46] Nationalists criticized the constitution because the Commonwealth was subject to U.S. laws and to approval by the U.S. Executive and Legislative branches of government, branches which Puerto Ricans did not participate in electing. As the government suppressed the Nationalist leaders, their political activities and influence waned.[47]

text: Four Nationalists opened fire on US Representatives during a debate on the floor of the US. Congress in 1954, wounding five men, one seriously. The Nationalists were tried and convicted in federal court and sentenced effectively to life imprisonment. In 1978 and 1979 their sentences were commuted by President Jimmy Carter to time served, and they were allowed to return to Puerto Rico.

text: In the 1960s, the United States received international criticism for holding onto one of the world's last colonies.[48] By the 1960s, a new phase of the Puerto Rican independence movement began. Several organizations began to use "clandestine armed struggle" against the U.S. government. Underground "people's armies" such as El Movimiento Independentista Revolucionario en Armas (MIRA),[49] Los Comandos Armado de Liberacion (CAL),[50] Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN), La Organización de Voluntarios por la Revolución Puertorriqueña (OVRP),[51] The Ejército Popular Boricua (EPB), and others began engaging in subversive activities against the U.S. government and military to bring attention to the colonial condition of Puerto Rico. In 1977, Rubén Berríos Martínez, then the President of the Puerto Rican Independence Party, wrote a long and detailed article in Foreign Affairs that declared that the 'only solution' was independence for Puerto Rico.[52]

text: Political support[edit]

text: A number of social groups, political parties, and individuals worldwide have supported the concept of Puerto Rican independence. The Washington Post reported that "calls for Puerto Rico's independence have existed since the days of Spanish colonial rule and continued after the United States seized control of the island in 1898...although many Puerto Ricans express deep patriotism for the island, the independence impulse has never translated in the polls."[53]

text: The Democratic Party in the United States asserted in its 2012 platform that it "will continue to work on improving Puerto Rico’s economic status by promoting job creation, education, health care, clean energy, and economic development on the Island."[54] The Republican Party asserts that it "support[s] the right of the United States Citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine," that Congress should "define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico" to gain permanent non-territorial status, and said that, while Puerto Rico's status should be supported by a referenda sponsored by "the U.S. government."[55] Neither of the two major parties in Puerto Rico supports independence: the Popular Democratic Party supports the current status of Puerto Rico as a self-governing unincorporated territory, and the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico supports statehood.

text: Minority parties have expressed different positions: in 2005, Communist Party USA passed a resolution about Puerto Rico, condemning American imperialism, "colonialism," etc., while stating that "the Communist Party of the USA... continues its support for independence of Puerto Rico and the transfer of all sovereign powers to Puerto Rico."[56] Their platform supported the people's "acquisition of their internationally recognized right to independence and self-determination..."[57] In 2012, the Green Party of the United States had a platform supporting independence.[58] Socialist Party USA does not support independence for Puerto Rico, but calls for "full representation for the U.S.territories of Guam and Puerto Rico, all Native American reservations, and the District of Columbia."[59]

text: During the summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in Havana, Cuba in January 2014, Nicolas Maduro, the President of Venezuela, told The Wall Street Journal that he supported Puerto Rican independence, saying that "it's an embarrassment that Latin America and the Caribbean in the 21st century still have colonies. Let the imperial elites of the U.S. say whatever they want."[60][61] Also at this summit, the president of Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, pledged to vote for independence of Puerto Rico; and Raúl Castro "called for an independent Puerto Rico."[60]

text: Other individuals and groups supporting Puerto Rican independence have included: poet Martín Espada, professor and writer Jason Ferreira, the group Calle 13, FALN leader Oscar López Rivera, Roberto Barreto, a member of Organizacion Socialista Internacional; Puerto Rican nationalist Carlos Alberto Torres, and U.S. Representative Luis Gutiérrez.[62][63][64][65][66][67][68]

text: 20th century to present[edit]

text: Levinson and Sparrow in their 2005 book suggest the Foraker Act (Pub.L. 56–191, 31 Stat. 77, enacted April 12, 1900), and the Jones–Shafroth Act (Pub.L. 64–368, 39 Stat. 951, enacted March 2, 1917) reduced political opposition in the island, as they vested the U.S. Congress with authority and veto power over any legislation or referendum initiated by Puerto Rico.[69][70]

text: Founded in 1922, the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party worked for independence. In 1946, Gilberto Concepción de Gracia founded the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP). It has continued to participate in the island's electoral process.

text: In the mid-century, the "Cointelpro program" was a project conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to surveil, infiltrate, discredit, and disrupt domestic political organizations which it classified as suspect or subversive. The police documented thousands of extensive carpetas (files) concerning individuals of all social groups and ages. Approximately 75,000 persons were listed as under political police surveillance. Historians and critics found that the massive surveillance apparatus was directed primarily against Puerto Rico's independence movement. As a result, many independence supporters moved to the Popular Democratic Party to support its opposition to statehood.[71]

text: In the 21st century, a majority of Independentistas seek to achieve independence through either the electoral or the diplomatic process.[citation needed] The party has elected some legislative candidates, but in recent elections has not won more than a small percentage of votes for its gubernatorial candidates (2.04% in 2008) or the legislative elections (4.5-5% of the island-wide legislative vote in 2008).[72]

text: United Nations' view[edit]

text: Since 1953, the UN has been considering the Political status of Puerto Rico and how to assist it in achieving "independence" or "decolonization". In 1978, the Special Committee determined that a "colonial relationship" existed between the US and Puerto Rico.[73]

text: Note that the UN's Special Committee has often referred to Puerto Rico as a nation in its reports, because, internationally, the people of Puerto Rico are often considered to be a Caribbean nation with their own national identity.[74][75][76] Most recently, in a June 2016 report, the Special Committee called for the United States to expedite the process to allow self-determination in Puerto Rico. More specifically, the group called on the United States to expedite a process that would allow the people of Puerto Rico to exercise fully their right to self-determination and independence. ... allow the Puerto Rican people to take decisions in a sovereign manner, and to address their urgent economic and social needs, including unemployment, marginalization, insolvency and poverty".[77]

text: 2012 status referendum[edit]

text: The independence movement has not attracted wide support. In a status referendum in 2012, which had a two-part vote, 5.5% voted for independence.[1][2] Analysts noted that the results were ambiguous because of issues related to the structure of questions and supporters of the commonwealth status urging voters to abstain from voting on the second question. Journalist Roque Planas, co-founder of the Latin American News Dispatch, wrote as an editor in the Huffington Post:

text: "the referendum consisted of two questions. First, it asked voters if they wanted to keep their current U.S. commonwealth status. Dissatisfaction emerged victorious with 52 percent of the vote. The referendum then asked if voters wanted to become a U.S. state, an independent country, or a freely associated state -- a type of independence in close alliance with the United States. Some 61 percent of those who answered the second question chose statehood. That 61 percent wasn’t the majority, however. Over 470,000 voters intentionally left the second question blank, meaning that only 45 percent of those casting ballots supported statehood."[78]

tag: div

text: Similarly, as reported by the New York Daily News, Juan Gonzalez, journalist and a co-host of the TV show Democracy Now! said:

text: "the referendum on the island’s future was, in fact, a two-part vote that actually revealed that most want an end to the status quo, but not necessarily statehood... And the results were: 809,000 votes for statehood, only 73,000 for independence, and 441,000 for sovereign free association... So statehood did not actually receive 61% of the vote — until you ignore the nearly half a million people who cast blank ballots."[79]

text: In October 2013, The Economist reported on the island economy's "dire financial straits."[80] Referring to the 2012 referendum, it said that "Puerto Rico is unlikely to become a state any time soon. Because the island remains a territory, the decision is ultimately out of boricuas’ hands...the legislature is highly unlikely to prioritise a Puerto Rican statehood bill...the Republican Party would surely use every tactic at its disposal to block a statehood bill," as the island voters have been overwhelmingly supportive of Democratic Party presidential candidates and could be expected to vote for the same party for Congressional seats if statehood were approved by Congress.[80]

text: The Washington Post reported in December 2013 that, since Puerto Ricans became US citizens in 1917, they have "been divided over their relationship with the mainland" on whether to become a US state, become independent, or a self-governing territory under US control.[81]

text: 2017 status referendum[edit]

text: The previous plebiscites provided voters with three options: statehood, free association, and independence. The 2017 referendum will offer only two options: Statehood and Independence/Free Association. If the majority vote for the latter, a second vote will be held to determine the preference: full independence as a nation or associated free state status with independence but with a "free and voluntary political association" between Puerto Rico and the United States.[82]

text: The White House Task Force on Puerto Rico offers the following specifics: "Free Association is a type of independence. A compact of Free Association would establish a mutual agreement that would recognize that the United States and Puerto Rico are closely linked in specific ways as detailed in the compact. Compacts of this sort are based on the national sovereignty of each country, and either nation can unilaterally terminate the association."[83] The content of the Compact of Free Association might cover topics such as the role of the US military in Puerto Rico, the use of the U.S. currency, free trade between the two entities, and whether Puerto Ricans would be U.S. citizens.[84]

text: Governor Ricardo Rosselló is strongly in favor of statehood to help develop the economy and help to "solve our 500-year-old colonial dilemma ... Colonialism is not an option .... It’s a civil rights issue ... 3.5 million citizens seeking an absolute democracy," he told the news media.[85] Benefits of statehood include an additional $10 billion per year in federal funds, the right to vote in presidential elections, higher Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a right for its government agencies and municipalities to file for bankruptcy. The latter is currently prohibited.[86]

text: Statehood might be useful as a means of dealing with the financial crisis, since it would allow for bankruptcy and the relevant protection. According to the Government Development Bank, this might be the only solution to the debt crisis. Congress has the power to vote to allow Chapter 9 protection without the need for statehood, but in late 2015 there was very little support in the House for this concept. Other benefits to statehood include increased disability benefits and Medicaid funding, the right to vote in Presidential elections and the higher (federal) minimum wage.[87]

text: At approximately the same time as the referendum, Puerto Rico's legislators are also expected to vote on a bill that would allow the Governor to draft a state constitution and hold elections to choose senators and representatives to the federal Congress. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum and the vote on the bill, action by the United States Congress would be necessary to implement changes to the status of Puerto Rico under the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution.[86]


document_title: Ben & Jerry's

question_text: when was ben and jerry's sold to unilever

question_tokens: when was ben and jerry 's sold to unilever

text: Ben & Jerry's

text: History[edit]

text: Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield were childhood friends from New York. While Greenfield finished college, he found himself unable to make his way into medical school. Cohen dropped out of school.[4] In 1977, Cohen and Greenfield completed a correspondence course on ice cream making from The Pennsylvania State University's Creamery. Cohen has severe anosmia, a lack of a sense of smell or taste, and so relied on "mouth feel" and texture to provide variety in his diet. This led to the company's trademark chunks being mixed in with their ice cream.[5] On May 5, 1978, with a $12,000[6] investment, the two business partners opened an ice cream parlor in a renovated gas station in downtown Burlington, Vermont. In 1979, they marked their anniversary by holding the first-ever free cone day, now an international annual celebration at every Ben & Jerry's store.[5]

text: In 1980, they rented space in an old spool and bobbin mill on South Champlain Street in Burlington and started packing their ice cream in pints. In 1981, the first Ben & Jerry's franchise opened on Route 7 in Shelburne, Vermont. In 1983, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was used to build “the world’s largest ice cream sundae” in St. Albans, Vermont; the sundae weighed 27,102 pounds (12,293 kg). That same year, the cows on their cartons were redesigned by local artist Woody Jackson.[7]

text: In 1984, Häagen-Dazs wanted to limit distribution of Ben & Jerry’s in Boston, prompting Ben & Jerry’s to file suit against the parent company, Pillsbury, in its now famous “What’s the Doughboy Afraid Of?” campaign.[8] In 1987, Häagen-Dazs again tried to enforce exclusive distribution, and Ben & Jerry’s filed its second lawsuit against the Pillsbury Company.

text: In 1985, the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation was established at the end of the year with a gift from Ben & Jerry's to fund community-oriented projects; it was then provided with 7.5% of the company’s annual pre-tax profits. In 1986, Ben & Jerry’s launched its “Cowmobile”, a modified mobile home used to distribute free scoops of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in a unique, cross-country “marketing drive”—driven and served by Ben and Jerry themselves. The “Cowmobile” burned to the ground outside of Cleveland four months later, but there were no injuries. Ben said it looked like “the world’s largest baked Alaska”.[9]

text: In 1988, the two men won the title of U.S. Small Business Persons Of The Year, awarded by U.S. President Ronald Reagan.[10] Also that year, the first brownies were ordered from Greyston Bakery, which led to the development of the popular Chocolate Fudge Brownie flavor.[11] In 1992, Ben & Jerry’s joined in a co-operative campaign with the national non-profit Children's Defense Fund; the campaign goal was to bring children’s basic needs to the top of the national agenda. Over 70,000 postcards were sent to Congress concerning kids and other national issues. In 1995, they hired Robert Holland, Jr. as CEO after holding a "Yo! I'm your C.E.O." essay contest as part of the search.[12] Holland left after 20 months following philosophical differences and was replaced by Perry Odak in 1997.[13]

text: In 1989, Ben & Jerry’s revealed their opposition of the use of rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) in all their products. This genetically engineered hormone is sometimes given to cows in order to boost milk production, but Ben & Jerry’s does not support this practice and is in favor of utilizing less chemically intensive ingredients for the safety of consumers and the environment.[14]

text: In 1994, Ben & Jerry's: The Inside Scoop, written by Fred "Chico" Lager, former CEO of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, was published. This book tracks the history of how Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream got started. The book focuses on "How Two Real Guys Built a Business with a Social Conscience and a Sense of Humor."[15]

text: In April 2000, Ben & Jerry's sold the company to Anglo-Dutch multinational food giant Unilever.[16] Unilever said it hopes to carry on the tradition of engaging "in these critical, global economic and social missions". Although the founders' names are still attached to the product, they do not hold any board or management position and are not involved in day-to-day management of the company.[17]

text: In 2001, Ben & Jerry's U.S. completed the transition to "Eco-Pint" packaging, which packaged all pint flavors in environmentally friendly unbleached paperboard Eco-Pint containers, a decision it later reversed. The use of brown-kraft unbleached paperboard had been a critical first step toward a totally biodegradable pint made without added chlorine. Due to what they described as increasing supply, quality, and cost challenges, Ben & Jerry's discontinued their use of the Eco-Pint in 2006, transitioning to a pint container made out of a bleached paperboard that it said was more readily available.[18]

text: On Earth Day in 2005, when a vote in the U.S. Senate proposed the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, Ben & Jerry's launched a protest by creating the largest ever Baked Alaska, which weighed 900 pounds (410 kg), and placed it in front of the U.S. Capitol Building.[19][20]

text: In March 2009, "CyClone Dairy"[21] launched an advertising campaign and a website to promote its milk products, which purportedly came exclusively from cloned cows.[22] On April 1, 2009 (April Fool's Day), Ben & Jerry's announced that it was behind this fake company. Ben & Jerry's had created the tongue-in-cheek hoax to raise awareness of the increasing presence of products from cloned animals within American food[23][24] and to campaign for a tracking system of cloned-animal products.[25] The hoax was revealed on April Fool's Day with the message: "We believe you should have the right to choose which foods you eat – and not to eat cloned foods if you don’t want to. And that's why Ben & Jerry’s believes we need a national clone tracking system, so people and companies can know where their food is coming from."[26]

text: In 2010, Jostein Solheim, a Unilever executive from Norway, became the new CEO of the company and had this to say about the transition: "My mantra that I've repeated a hundred times since starting at Ben & Jerry's is: ‘Change is a wonderful thing,'" he said. "The world needs dramatic change to address the social and environmental challenges we are facing. Values led businesses can play a critical role in driving that positive change. We need to lead by example, and prove to the world that this is the best way to run a business. Historically, this company has been and must continue to be a pioneer to continually challenge how business can be a force for good and address inequities inherent in global business."[27]

text: On February 24, 2012, Ben & Jerry's released a new Greek Frozen Yogurt line, which came in several flavors: "Strawberry Shortcake", "Blueberry Vanilla Graham", "Raspberry Fudge Chunk", "Banana Peanut Butter",[28] and "Vanilla" (scoop shop exclusive):[29] On April 12, 2013, "Pineapple Passionfruit", "Vanilla Honey Caramel", and "Liz Lemon" were added to the Greek Yogurt line.[30] The Liz Lemon flavor was inspired by a character of the same name created by actress Tina Fey as the main character on the NBC television sitcom 30 Rock.[31]

text: In 2013, Ben & Jerry’s committed to making their products GMO-free in support of mandatory GMO labeling legislation.[32]

text: Original flavors and sundaes[edit]

text: The "Vermonster" is a large ice cream sundae served in a "Vermonster Bucket" in Ben & Jerry's "scoop shops." Its ingredients are 20 scoops of ice cream, 4 bananas, 4 ladles of hot fudge, 3 chocolate chip cookies, 1 chocolate fudge brownie, 10 scoops of walnuts, 2 scoops each of any 4 toppings, and whipped cream. It contains 14,000 calories (kcal), and 500 grams (17.64 oz) of fat. Since 2009, the Vermonster Challenge is an annual charity event held by Ben & Jerry's in which teams of four compete to finish a Vermonster and win free ice cream for a year.[33]

text: "Chubby Hubby" consists of vanilla malt ice cream swirled with fudge and peanut butter, and containing pretzel nuggets covered in fudge and filled with peanut butter. During the month of September 2009, Ben and Jerry's, in partnership with Freedom to Marry, renamed "Chubby Hubby" to "Hubby Hubby," in celebration of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the company's home state of Vermont. The carton featured the image of two men getting married beneath a rainbow.[34][35][36]

text: On March 13, 2012, Ben & Jerry’s announced it would be changing the name of one of its ice cream flavours in the UK in support of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. "Oh! My! Apple Pie!" would become "Apple-y Ever After" and tubs would feature a gay couple atop a wedding cake decorated with rainbows.[37]

text: "Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough" was temporarily renamed "I Dough, I Dough" in the United States during the summer of 2015. This was in celebration of United States Supreme Court's ruling in support of same-sex marriage. The proceeds from sales were to go to the Human Rights Campaign (a nonprofit advocacy group for LGBT rights).[38]

text: Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield appeared on The Colbert Report on March 5, 2007, to promote their new ice cream flavor, "Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream", and Cohen's progressive advocacy group TrueMajority.

text: The company renamed a flavour, "Yes Pecan!", in reference to Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. They decided in January 2009 to donate all proceeds made on the sale of that flavor to the Common Cause Education Fund.[39]

text: On March 2, 2011, Cohen and Greenfield appeared on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and unveiled their new flavour of ice cream, "Late Night Snack", whose carton features a picture of Jimmy Fallon on it.[40]

text: On February 17, 2015, Cohen and Greenfield appeared on The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon and unveiled their new flavor of ice cream, "The Tonight Dough", which all of its proceeds go to the SeriousFun Children's Network that supports camps for children with major illnesses.[41]

text: In 2015, Charoset flavoured ice cream became widely available in time for the Passover holiday.[42][43][44][45][46][47]

text: In April 2015, the company confirmed that it was working on vegan options, after hearing consumers' feedback, led by a petition and FARM organization.[48] In early February 2016, the company announced a new all-vegan line with 4 flavors. Two of these are versions of existing flavors - "Chunky Monkey" and "Chocolate Fudge Brownie" - and two are all-new vegan-only flavors: "Coffee Caramel Fudge" and "Peanut Butter & Cookies".[49]

text: Free Cone Day is an annual event held between late March and early May, in which Ben & Jerry's scoop shops give out free ice cream cups and cones. Free Cone Day was first held on Saturday, May 5, 1979, by Ben and Jerry as a customer and staff appreciation event for the first anniversary of their store's opening.

text: Over one million free cones are given away each year, prompting the company's ad slogan "Be One In A Million." Charitable organizations are often present at the stores each year and enjoy a significant amount of fundraising success. Often, local celebrities show up at various stores, promoting the day and the charities there.[50] Sometimes the event is scheduled to coincide with Earth Day and sometimes volunteers are on hand with clipboards and voter registration forms to help those who would like to register to vote.

text: Controversies[edit]

text: Commercial[edit]

text: The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer-advocacy group, urged Ben & Jerry's to stop labeling their ice cream as "all natural," due to the company's use of corn syrup, alkalised cocoa, and other chemically modified ingredients.[51] In September 2010, the company agreed to stop labeling their ice cream and frozen yogurt as "all natural."[52]

text: In 2011, Ben & Jerry's released a flavor named Schweddy Balls, in homage to the Saturday Night Live (SNL) skit of the same name. An American group named "One Million Moms" protested, saying that the name was too explicit for grocery store shelves—spokesperson Monica Cole explained to the media: "I realize it could be a lot worse, but are they going to progressively get worse if we don't say something? Maybe they'll think twice before they come up with another inappropriate name for ice cream." However, the expression of disdain was not unanimous among U.S. parents, as mother Gina Ragusa said to The Huffington Post: "We just think it's funny, that's all, and honestly we all really want to try it", adding that she consistently checks for the item's availability at her local supermarket.[53] Actor Alec Baldwin, who appeared in the SNL skit as baker Pete Schweddy, hosted the September 24, 2011 episode of the 37th season of the show and responded to the protests by stating that a new flavor called "Go Fudge Yourself" had been produced for those in opposition to the tribute. Following the initial release of the flavor, Baldwin informed the media that "thanks to Ben & Jerry's, the goodness of the Schweddy family recipe won't go with me to the great beyond," as he had previously feared that his association with the SNL episode would remain permanent until his death.[54]

text: Political[edit]

text: Following rumors that suggested that Ben & Jerry's supported the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal—who was convicted in 1982 of killing Philadelphia Police officer Daniel Faulkner—[55] the company confirmed that Cohen did sign a petition, as a private citizen, asking that "the system of American justice be followed fully in the case."[56]

text: Controversy emerged in 2006 after the company released a flavor of ice cream called "Black and Tan." It had named the flavor after the alcoholic drink, which is made by mixing stout with pale ale, but the "Black and Tans" are also known as a paramilitary police force of British World War I veterans recruited during the Irish Revolution. At the time that the flavor was released, the Irish nationalist movement was still offended by the historical association of the title.[57]

text: In 2012, Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel (VTJP)[58] contacted Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfield and the CEO of Ben & Jerry’s after learning that ice cream produced by Ben & Jerry’s franchise in Israel[59] was being sold in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Leafleting occurred at locations in Vermont, New York and California on 'Free Cone Day' in April 2013[60] and April 2014.[61] As of November 2014[update], 232 organizations across the United States and in seventeen countries worldwide have signed a letter written by VTJP calling on Ben & Jerry's to end its commercial ties to such settlements.[62]

text: In late April 2014, Ben & Jerry's signed onto the "Fight for the Reef" campaign, a partnership between the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)-Australia and the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS). Premier Campbell Newman and Queensland state senator Matthew Canavan both said in statements that Ben & Jerry's was making misleading statements that exaggerated the detrimental impact that proposed government programs would have on the Great Barrier Reef,[63][63] and Environment Minister Andrew Powell said that "The only people taking a scoop out of the reef is Ben and Jerry’s and Unilever. If you understand the facts, you’d want to be boycotting Ben and Jerry’s". Australian Ben & Jerry's brand manager Kalli Swaik responded that "Ben & Jerry’s believes that dredging and dumping in world heritage waters surrounding the marine park area will be detrimental to the reef ecology. It threatens the health of one of Australia’s most iconic treasures."[64]

text: In April 2016, Ben & Jerry's cofounders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, were both arrested at the Democracy Awakening protests on the U.S. Capitol steps in Washington D.C.[65]

text: In May 2017, Ben and Jerry's announced they would not serve two scoops of the same ice cream flavor in Australia, due to the refusal of the Australian government to legalize same-sex marriage. They said this would encourage "fans to contact their MP's to tell them the time has come-make marriage equality legal!". This stance they said will continue for however long it takes for same-sex marriage to be legalized.[66][67]

text: Social[edit]

text: In February 2012, a Ben & Jerry's franchise near Harvard University created a limited edition frozen yogurt flavor named "Taste the Lin-Sanity," in honor of Asian-American basketball player Jeremy Lin, a Harvard alumnus. At inception, the product contained vanilla frozen yogurt, lychee honey swirls, and fortune cookie pieces, leading to a widely publicized controversy about racial stereotyping due to the association of the fortune cookie ingredient with Chinese culture. The latter ingredient was later replaced with waffle cookies, as the fortune cookies became soggy and the franchise received returns from customers. Ben & Jerry's general manager for Boston and Cambridge explained to the media: "we obviously weren't looking to offend anybody and the majority of the feedback about it has been positive."[68] Ben & Jerry's released an official statement shortly after the launch of the product apologizing to those who were offended.[69]

text: In September 2014, anti-hazing activists raised concerns about the ice cream flavor "Hazed & Confused," which had been released earlier that year. The concern was that the name could be perceived as belittling of hazing and bullying problems. The company has noted that the name was based on the word hazelnut and a play on the phrase "dazed and confused", which is both a song popularized by Led Zeppelin and a coming-of-age comedy film from the early 1990s.[70] The decision was made in October to not rename the flavor.[71]

text: Product safety[edit]

text: The Organic Consumers Association announced in July of 2017 that it found traces of the herbicide glyphosate in 10 of 11 samples of the company’s ice creams.[72] The traces were found to be at levels below the ceiling set by the Environmental Protection Agency for environmental contamination.

text: Global locations[edit]

text: Ben and Jerry's has locations around the world.[73]

text:
Aruba
 Australia
 Austria
 Bahamas
 Belgium
 Brazil
 Canada
 Croatia
 Czech Republic
 Denmark
 Finland
 France
 Germany
 Greece
 Ireland
 Israel
 Italy
 Japan
 Mexico
 Netherlands
 Netherlands Antilles
 New Zealand
 Norway
 Poland
 Portugal
 Kosovo
 Puerto Rico
 Romania[74]
 Serbia
 Singapore
 Slovakia
 Spain
 Sweden
 Switzerland
 Thailand
 Turkey
 United Arab Emirates
 United Kingdom
 United States

text: Former markets[edit]

text:
Estonia
 Hong Kong[75]
 Morocco
 Russia[76]


document_title: List of National Basketball Association single-game scoring leaders

question_text: who has scored the most points in a game in nba history

text: Key[edit]

text:
^
Denotes player who is currently active in the NBA

*
Denotes player who has been inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame

Occurred in playoff competition

Player's team lost the game

MP
Minutes played
FGM
Field goals made
FGA
Field goal attempts

3PM
3-point field goals made
3PA
3-point field goal attempts
DNP
Did not play

FTM
Free throws made
FTA
Free throw attempts

text: List[edit]

text:
Rank
Points
Player
Date
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Team
Opponent
Score
MP
FGM
FGA
3PM
3PA
FTM
FTA
Notes
Ref.

Scoring by quarter

1
100
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-03-02-0000March 2, 1962
23
18
28
31
Philadelphia Warriors
New York Knicks
169–147
48
36
63
—
—
28
32
[A]
[1][2] [3][4][5]

2
81
Bryant, KobeKobe Bryant
000000002006-01-22-0000January 22, 2006
14
12
27
28
Los Angeles Lakers
Toronto Raptors
122–104
41:56
28
46
7
13
18
20
[B]
[6][7][8]

3
78
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001961-12-08-0000December 8, 1961
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
Los Angeles Lakers
147–151
63
31
62
—
—
16
31
[C]
[5]

4
73
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-01-13-0000January 13, 1962
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
Chicago Packers
135–117
48
29
48
—
—
15
25
[D]
[5]

73
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-11-16-0000November 16, 1962
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
New York Knicks
127–111
48
29
43
—
—
15
19
[E]
[9]

73
Thompson, DavidDavid Thompson*
000000001978-04-09-0000April 9, 1978
32
21
9
11
Denver Nuggets
Detroit Pistons
137–139
43
28
38
—
—
17
20
[F]

7
72
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-11-03-0000November 3, 1962
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
Los Angeles Lakers
115–127
—
29
48
—
—
14
18

[9]

8
71
Baylor, ElginElgin Baylor*
000000001960-11-15-0000November 15, 1960
—
—
—
—
Los Angeles Lakers
New York Knicks
123–108
45
28
48
—
—
15
18
[G]

71
Robinson, DavidDavid Robinson*
000000001994-04-24-0000April 24, 1994
18
6
19
28
San Antonio Spurs
Los Angeles Clippers
112–97
44
26
41
1
2
18
25
[H]
[10][11]

10
70
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001963-03-10-0000March 10, 1963
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
Syracuse Nationals
148–163
48
27
38
—
—
16
22

[9]

70
Booker, DevinDevin Booker^
000000002017-03-24-0000March 24, 2017
10
9
23
28
Phoenix Suns
Boston Celtics
120–130
45
21
40
4
11
24
26
[I]

12
69
Jordan, MichaelMichael Jordan*
000000001990-03-28-0000March 28, 1990
16
15
20
18
Chicago Bulls
Cleveland Cavaliers
117–113
50
23
37
2
6
21
23
[J]
[12][13][14]

13
68
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001967-12-16-0000December 16, 1967
14
15
15
24
Philadelphia 76ers
Chicago Bulls
143–123
—
30
40
—
—
8
22

68
Maravich, PetePete Maravich*
000000001977-02-25-0000February 25, 1977
17
14
17
20
New Orleans Jazz
New York Knicks
124–107
43
26
43
—
—
16
19

15
67
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001961-03-09-0000March 9, 1961
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
New York Knicks
135–126
—
27
37
—
—
13
17

67
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-02-17-0000February 17, 1962
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
St. Louis Hawks
121–128
48
26
44
—
—
15
20

[5]

67
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-02-25-0000February 25, 1962
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
New York Knicks
135–149
48
25
38
—
—
17
22

[5]

67
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001963-01-11-0000January 11, 1963
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
Los Angeles Lakers
129–134
—
28
47
—
—
11
17

[9]

19
66
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001969-02-09-0000February 9, 1969
17
17
22
10
Los Angeles Lakers
Phoenix Suns
134–116
48
29
35
—
—
8
18
[K]

20
65
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-02-13-0000February 13, 1962
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
Cincinnati Royals
132–152
48
24
40
—
—
17
30

[5]

65
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-02-27-0000February 27, 1962
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
St. Louis Hawks
147–137
48
25
43
—
—
15
20

[5]

65
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001966-02-07-0000February 7, 1966
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia 76ers
Los Angeles Lakers
132–125
—
28
43
—
—
9
20

65
Bryant, KobeKobe Bryant
000000002007-03-16-0000March 16, 2007
4
19
9
24
Los Angeles Lakers
Portland Trail Blazers
116–111
49:58
23
39
8
12
11
12
[L]
[15]

24
64
Baylor, ElginElgin Baylor*
000000001959-11-08-0000November 8, 1959
13
12
17
22
Minneapolis Lakers
Boston Celtics
136–115
—
25
47
—
—
14
19
[M]

64
Barry, RickRick Barry*
000000001974-03-26-0000March 26, 1974
—
—
23
22
Golden State Warriors
Portland Trail Blazers
143–120
43
30
45
—
—
4
5

64
Jordan, MichaelMichael Jordan*
000000001993-01-16-0000January 16, 1993
22
8
11
16
Chicago Bulls
Orlando Magic
124–128
47
27
49
1
5
9
11
[N]
[16]

27
63
Fulks, JoeJoe Fulks*
000000001949-02-10-0000February 10, 1949
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
Indianapolis Jets
108–87
—
27
56
—
—
9
14
[O]

63
Baylor, ElginElgin Baylor*
000000001961-12-08-0000December 8, 1961
—
—
—
—
Los Angeles Lakers
Philadelphia Warriors
151–147
—
23
55
—
—
17
24
[P]
[17]

63
West, JerryJerry West*
000000001962-01-17-0000January 17, 1962
—
—
—
—
Los Angeles Lakers
New York Knicks
129–121
39
22
36
—
—
19
22

63
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-12-14-0000December 14, 1962
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
Los Angeles Lakers
118–120
—
24
41
—
—
15
20

[9]

63
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001964-11-26-0000November 26, 1964
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
Philadelphia 76ers
117–128
—
27
58
—
—
9
20

63
Gervin, GeorgeGeorge Gervin*
000000001978-04-09-0000April 9, 1978
20
33
10
DNP
San Antonio Spurs
New Orleans Jazz
132–153
33
23
49
—
—
17
20
[Q]

63
Jordan, MichaelMichael Jordan*
000000001986-04-20-0000April 20, 1986
17
6
13
18
Chicago Bulls
Boston Celtics
131–135
53
22
41
0
0
19
21
[R]

34
62
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-01-14-0000January 14, 1962
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
Boston Celtics
136–145
48
27
45
—
—
8
10

[5]

62
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-01-17-0000January 17, 1962
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
St. Louis Hawks
136–130
53
24
48
—
—
14
20
[S]
[5]

62
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-01-21-0000January 21, 1962
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
Syracuse Nationals
139–132
53
25
42
—
—
12
17
[T]
[5]

62
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001963-01-29-0000January 29, 1963
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
New York Knicks
123–103
—
27
44
—
—
8
17

[9]

62
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001964-11-15-0000November 15, 1964
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
Cincinnati Royals
122–106
—
26
44
—
—
10
21

62
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001966-03-03-0000March 3, 1966
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia 76ers
San Francisco Warriors
135–125
—
26
39
—
—
10
19

62
McGrady, TracyTracy McGrady*
000000002004-03-10-0000March 10, 2004
7
21
24
10
Orlando Magic
Washington Wizards
108–99
45:50
20
37
5
14
17
26

[18]

62
Bryant, KobeKobe Bryant
000000002005-12-20-0000December 20, 2005
15
17
30
DNP
Los Angeles Lakers
Dallas Mavericks
112–90
32:53
18
31
4
10
22
25
[U]
[19][20]

62
Anthony, CarmeloCarmelo Anthony^
000000002014-01-24-0000January 24, 2014
20
17
19
6
New York Knicks
Charlotte Bobcats
125–96
38:39
23
35
6
11
10
10
[V]
[21]

43
61
Mikan, GeorgeGeorge Mikan*
000000001952-01-20-0000January 20, 1952
18
18
—
—
Minneapolis Lakers
Rochester Royals
91–81
—
22
45
—
—
17
21
[W]

61
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001961-12-09-0000December 9, 1961
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
Chicago Packers
135–113
48
28
48
—
—
5
10

[5]

61
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-02-22-0000February 22, 1962
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
St. Louis Hawks
139–121
48
21
36
—
—
19
34

[5]

61
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-02-28-0000February 28, 1962
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
Chicago Packers
128–119
48
24
46
—
—
13
17

[5]

61
Baylor, ElginElgin Baylor*
000000001962-04-14-0000April 14, 1962
18
15
13
15
Los Angeles Lakers
Boston Celtics
126–121
—
22
46
—
—
17
19
[X]

61
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-11-21-0000November 21, 1962
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
Cincinnati Royals
139–143
—
27
52
—
—
7
15

[9]

61
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-12-11-0000December 11, 1962
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
Syracuse Nationals
136–124
—
27
57
—
—
7
11

[9]

61
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001962-12-18-0000December 18, 1962
—
—
—
—
San Francisco Warriors
St. Louis Hawks
130–110
—
26
53
—
—
9
14

[9]

61
Jordan, MichaelMichael Jordan*
000000001987-03-04-0000March 4, 1987
14
10
7
26
Chicago Bulls
Detroit Pistons
125–120
43
22
39
0
0
17
18
[Y]
[22][23][24]

61
Jordan, MichaelMichael Jordan*
000000001987-04-16-0000April 16, 1987
15
17
16
13
Chicago Bulls
Atlanta Hawks
114–117
41
22
38
0
3
17
21
[Z]
[25][26][27][28][29]

61
Malone, KarlKarl Malone*
000000001990-01-27-0000January 27, 1990
17
13
20
11
Utah Jazz
Milwaukee Bucks
144–96
33
21
26
0
0
19
23

[30]

61
O'Neal, ShaquilleShaquille O'Neal*
000000002000-03-06-0000March 6, 2000
10
16
16
19
Los Angeles Lakers
Los Angeles Clippers
123–103
44:52
24
35
0
0
13
22
[AA]
[31]

61
Bryant, KobeKobe Bryant
000000002009-02-02-0000February 2, 2009
18
16
12
15
Los Angeles Lakers
New York Knicks
126–117
36:48
19
31
3
6
20
20

[32]

61
James, LeBronLeBron James^
000000002014-03-03-0000March 3, 2014
11
13
25
12
Miami Heat
Charlotte Bobcats
124–107
41:12
22
33
8
10
9
12
[AB]
[33][34]

57
60
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001961-12-01-0000December 1, 1961
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
Los Angeles Lakers
138–117
48
22
47
—
—
16
26

[5]

60
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001961-12-29-0000December 29, 1961
—
—
—
—
Philadelphia Warriors
Los Angeles Lakers
123–118
48
24
43
—
—
12
19
[AC]
[5]

60
Chamberlain, WiltWilt Chamberlain*
000000001969-01-26-0000January 26, 1969
18
9
10
23
Los Angeles Lakers
Cincinnati Royals
126–113
—
22
36
—
—
16
24
[AD]

60
King, BernardBernard King*
000000001984-12-25-0000December 25, 1984
21
19
11
9
New York Knicks
New Jersey Nets
114–120
41
19
30
0
0
22
26

[35]

60
Bird, LarryLarry Bird*
000000001985-03-12-0000March 12, 1985
12
11
19
18
Boston Celtics
Atlanta Hawks
126–115
43
22
36
1
4
15
16
[AE]
[36]

60
Chambers, TomTom Chambers
000000001990-03-24-0000March 24, 1990
14
21
14
11
Phoenix Suns
Seattle SuperSonics
121–95
42
22
32
0
0
16
18

[37][38][39][40]

60
Iverson, AllenAllen Iverson*
000000002005-02-12-0000February 12, 2005
17
12
11
20
Philadelphia 76ers
Orlando Magic
112–99
42:01
17
36
2
5
24
27

[41][42]

60
Arenas, GilbertGilbert Arenas
000000002006-12-17-0000December 17, 2006
12
5
12
15
Washington Wizards
Los Angeles Lakers
147–141
49:00
17
32
5
12
21
27
[AF]
[43]

60
Bryant, KobeKobe Bryant
000000002007-03-22-0000March 22, 2007
13
11
19
17
Los Angeles Lakers
Memphis Grizzlies
121–119
45:11
20
37
3
7
17
18
[AG]
[44]

60
Bryant, KobeKobe Bryant
000000002016-04-13-0000April 13, 2016
15
7
15
23
Los Angeles Lakers
Utah Jazz
101–96
42
22
50
6
21
10
12
[AH]
[45][46]

60
Klay Thompson^
000000002016-12-05-0000December 5, 2016
17
23
20
DNP
Golden State Warriors
Indiana Pacers
142–106
29
21
33
8
14
10
11
[AI]
[47]

60
James Harden^
000000002018-01-30-0000January 30, 2018
16
13
13
18
Houston Rockets
Orlando Magic
114–107
46:26
19
30
5
14
17
18
[AJ]
[48]