Interdicción civil

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=ytff1-&p=interdiccion%20civil%20puerto%20rico&type=

http://www.senadopr.us/Proyectos%20del%20Senado/ps0489-09.pdf

PLURALITY/MAJORITY SYSTEMS

PLURALITY/MAJORITY SYSTEMS

This plurality/majority family of voting systems is undoubtedly the one most familiar to Americans. They are the winner-take-all systems we most often use to elect officials to our local, state, and federal legislatures. These systems all require the winning candidate to garner either a plurality or a majority of the votes. We inherited this approach to voting from the British, and plurality-majority systems are used today primarily in Great Britain and its former colonies, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and India. The main purpose of these systems is to represent the majority or plurality of voters in a district, and (with the exception of at-large voting) to ensure representation of local geographical areas.

Four types of plurality-majority voting systems are described below.  The first two are the commonly-used plurality systems:  single-member district and at-large voting.  Less common are the two majority systems that use runoffs: the two-round system, and instant runoff voting .

Single-member district plurality voting.
At-large voting.
Two-round runoff voting.
Instant runoff voting.

---

Single-Member District Plurality Voting

Single-member district plurality voting (SMDP) is the system most commonly used for legislative elections in the United States. It is the one most people think of when they think of the word "voting." In Great Britain and Canada, this system is often called "first-past-the-post."
How It Works. In this system, all the candidates appear on the ballot and the voters indicate their choice of one of them--by marking an X, pulling a voting lever, etc. (See example below.) All the votes are then counted and the winner is the one with the most votes. Winners need not collect a majority of the votes, only more votes than their opponents do--a plurality of the votes. So if candidate A receives 40% of the vote, candidate B receives 35%, and candidate C gets 25% -- candidate A wins the seat.

Single-Member District Plurality Ballot

Political Attributes.  SMDP is good at ensuring that the plurality of voters are represented and that all local geographical areas have a voice in the legislature.  It also tends to reinforce the two-party system, and to produce stable single-party majorities in legislatures.  It does this by making it difficult for third parties to elect their candidates. This also serves as a check on small extremist parties. On the other hand, this voting system also tends to misrepresent parties, produce manufactured majorities, encourage gerrymandering, discourage voter turnout, create high levels of wasted votes, and deny fair representation to third parties, racial minorities and women.

---

At-Large Voting

This system is unique among plurality-majority systems in that it uses multi-member districts instead of single-member districts. For that reason political scientists often refer to it as "multi-member district plurality" voting. Internationally it is often called "block voting."  Many representatives to state legislatures and even the U. S. Congress were at one time elected in multi-member districts--often small two or three seat districts. Ten states still use some of these districts for state legislative elections. Today, however, at-large voting is used primarily in local elections, primarily municipal elections. Typically an entire town or city is considered to be one large district, and all candidates for office run together against each other.
How It Works. In at-large voting, all the candidates for office run in one large multi-member district -- usually the entire city.  Voters have the same number of votes as the number of seats to be filled. The candidates with the highest numbers of votes (a plurality) win. Below is a ballot that would be used in a city election in which the members of a five-person city council would be chosen. All candidates for the five seats are on the ballot and voters cast five votes for the candidates they prefer. The following table illustrates how the votes might be distributed and the winners chosen.

At-Large Ballot

At-Large Voting Results

There are several variations of at-large voting. In one of them that is used in Seattle and several other cities, the at-large seats are numbered and specific candidates vie for these individual seats. So candidates A and B would vie for seat one, candidates C and D for seat two, and so on. All the voters in the city cast one vote for their preferred candidates in each of these races, and the candidate with the plurality wins. In another variation, some cities use the numbered seats, but also have a residency requirement. Candidates for a particular seat must live in a certain area or district of the city. This ensures that all neighborhoods have some representation. Again all the voters in the city are able to vote for each of the seats.

Political Attributes.  At-large voting gives good representation to the largest political group or party.  It is also designed to ensure that city councilors represented the interests of the city as a whole, not the special interests of particular neighborhood districts. Like SMDP, it also encourages a two-party system and single-party legislative majorities. In addition, since there are no districts, this voting systems eliminates the possibility of gerrymandering. However, because this is a winner-take-all system, at-large voting shares most of the same problems as single-member district plurality voting, including the misrepresentation of parties, manufactured majorities, low voter turnout, high levels of wasted votes, and denial of fair representation to third parties, racial minorities and women. And it may make some of these problems worse. In particular, this system tends to be the worst at representing racial and political minorities. It allows a majority of the voters to win all the seats on the city council, thus shutting out these minorities from representation. (Note that in the election described above, the Republican voters are in the majority and so are able to elect all the city councilors.)  Finally, at-large voting, in its most common form, fails to ensure that all neighborhoods in the city are represented.

---

Two-Round Runoff Voting

The two-round system (TRS) is a majority voting system. Majority systems are currently used less commonly than plurality systems.  They require candidates in single-member district elections to garner a majority of the votes to win legislative office. TRS requires a runoff election between the two top candidates if no candidate wins a majority of the votes in the general election. This system is designed to solve one of the obvious problems of plurality voting: the possibility of electing a candidate that was supported only by a minority of the electorate in the district.
TRS is used rarely worldwide. Only two countries in Western Europe use TRS for legislative elections, France and Monaco. Several developing countries that came under French influence also use this system, including Mali, Togo, Chad, Gabon, and Haiti. In the United States, TRS is used in a number of jurisdictions, mostly on the local level and mostly in the South. Runoffs first came into use here at the beginning of the twentieth century when parties began to have primaries. These primaries often attracted more than two candidates and the resulting winner would sometimes garner much less than a majority of the vote. Today, runoffs are also used in some U.S. cities that have non-partisan elections, again primarily because such contests are more likely to draw more than two candidates.
How It Works. In order to ensure that the winning candidate receives a majority of the vote, this system uses two rounds of voting with polling taking place on two separate days. Ballots are identical to those used in plurality voting (see above), and voters mark them in the same way. In the first round, all candidates are listed on the ballot and voters indicate their preference of one of them. All these votes are then added up and if a candidate receives a majority of the vote (50% + 1 vote), that candidate is declared elected. If no one receives a majority, the field is cut down to the top two candidates who received the highest number of votes, and a runoff election is held. The second election is typically held several weeks after the first. The winner is the candidate who gets the most votes, which is inevitably a majority, since there are only two candidates running.
Political Attributes. The two-round runoff system is only a slight modification of the single-member district plurality system, and it is really only designed to address one of its problems -- the possibility of a plurality winner -- which it does eliminate.  It also does well in encouraging a two-party system and single-party legislative majorities. However, it is still a winner-take-all voting system and so it shares all the basic problems of this approach to voting, including the misrepresentation of parties, manufactured majorities, gerrymandering, high levels of wasted votes, and denial of fair representation to third parties, racial minorities and women. In addition, it brings with it two more problems: the added expense of a second election, and the lower voter turnout that usually plagues those second elections.

---

Instant Runoff Voting

Instant runoff voting is also known as "IRV," and "majority preferential voting." In Australia, where this system is used to elect their lower house of parliament, it is called the "alternative vote." Like two-round voting, this majority system a minor variation of single-member district plurality voting that was developed to ensure that the winning candidate enjoys the support of the majority of the voters in the district. It was also thought to be an improvement over the two-round system because it does not require a separate election--it provides an "instant" runoff.
How It Works. In IRV voting, like plurality voting, all candidates are listed on the ballot. But instead of voting for only one candidate, voters rank the candidates in the order of their preference. This ranking process is illustrated in ballot below. It is an AccuVote ballot, which allows ballots to be scanned and tabulated by computer. It is similar to marking answers on the standardized tests used in schools. On this ballot, voters fill in numbered boxes to indicate their ranking of the candidates. The mark a "1" for their most preferred candidate, a "2" for their second preference, and so on.

Instant Runoff Ballot

The counting of the ballots is also different from plurality voting. First, all the number one preferences of the voters are counted. If a candidate receives over 50% of the first choice votes, he or she is declared elected. If no candidate receives a majority, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The ballots of supporters of this defeated candidate are then transferred to whichever of the remaining candidates they marked as their number two choice. (It is as if you told the supporters of the last place candidate, "Your candidate cannot possibly win, so which of the remaining candidates would you like your vote to go to?) After this transfer, the votes are then recounted to see if any candidate now receives a majority of the vote. The process of eliminating the lowest candidate and transferring their votes continues until one candidate receives a majority of the continuing votes and wins the election.
This transfer process is illustrated in the table below. In this hypothetical election, there are 100,000 votes cast and no candidate receives over 50% of the vote in the first round. So the lowest candidate--Royce--is eliminated and his ballots are transferred to their second choices. 1,000 of Royce’s supporters gave Chou as their second choice, and 6,000 indicated Kleinberg as their second choice. The new totals show that no one yet has a majority, so Chou is eliminated. 4,000 of Chou's votes are transferred to Kleinberg and 5,000 are given to Rosen. (If some of Chou's ballots had listed Royce as the second choice, they would have been transferred to their third choice, since Royce had been eliminated.) After this latest transfer is it clear that Kleinberg now has over 50% of the vote and she is declared the winner. As this example illustrates, this system essentially operates as a series of runoff elections, with progressively fewer candidates each time, until one candidate gets a majority of the vote.

Vote Counting in Instant Runoff Voting

Political Attributes. IRV has the advantage of the two-round system -- ensuring a majority winner -- while avoiding its major disadvantages: the added expense and lower voter turnout of a second election. However, being in the plurality-majority family of voting systems, IRV shares most of the political disadvantages of this winner-take-all approach, including the misrepresentation of parties, manufactured majorities, gerrymandering, low voter turnout, high levels of wasted votes, and denial of fair representation to third parties, racial minorities and women.

[ Up ] [ Semiproportional Systems ] [ Proportional Representation Systems ] [ Plurality-Majority Systems ]

 https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/plurality.htm

How to make a state? Three ways to redraw the U.S.A

By Holly Munson | National Constitution Center –  august 21, 2012

 

http://news.yahoo.com/state-three-ways-redraw-u-090205524.html

Fifty is such a nice, round number. You can arrange fifty stars into neat, alternating rows. It’s bold, familiar, satisfying—the big 5-0.

What if every separatist movement succeeded? The map would look like this. Credit: Matthew White

But for some people, 50 just isn’t enough. For some people, 51 is the magic number. They want to be that 51: the fifty-first state of the United States of America.

In March 2011, a group of residents of Pima County, Arizona, launched a campaign to break away from Arizona and become the fifty-first state. (Their aim, according to the group’s website, is to separate themselves from the “extreme aspects” of the political agenda in neighboring Maricopa County.) But theirs is only the most recent in a long line of campaigns for statehood.

This process has been used successfully to create five states.

The drive to shape a new state seems to be a natural fit in the landscape of American history. America’s founders sought to separate from their existing government because they felt they were inadequately represented. Similarly, many new-state movements have been prompted by concerns about taxation without representation. If we don’t get our way, they say, we’ll simply strike out on our own. For example, in 1919 a state representative in Massachusetts, upset about a $600,000 tax on the city, sought to turn Boston into a state. Other tax-related movements have arisen in Chicago, southwestern Kansas, and Long Island, N.Y., to name a few.

So what does it take to make a state? And what would the nation’s map look like if those new-state wannabes were actually successful?

HOW TO MAKE A STATE

We all know it’s not constitutional for a state to secede from the Union—that was made pretty clear with the Civil War. (If secession were legal, though, North America might look a lot different, as this map shows.) But it is constitutional to create a new state out of an existing state—that is, with the approval of the state legislature and of Congress. The process for carving out a new state is outlined in Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution:

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

This process has been used successfully to create five states: Vermont (from New York, in 1791); Kentucky (from Virginia, in 1792); Tennessee (from North Carolina, in 1796); Maine (from Massachusetts, in 1820); and West Virginia (from Virginia, in 1863). (For more details on Article IV, see the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution online.)

BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO

In addition to the handful of success stories, though, there are scores of failed attempts at statehood—“lost states,” as author Michael J. Trinklein classifies them. His book, “Lost States,” chronicles seventy-five almost-states, from Absaroka to Yucatan. For these lost states, the reasons for failure vary: poor timing, unappealing name choice (would you want to live in a state called Cherronesus?), lack of public support, or distraction from more pressing matters, like a struggling economy. Sometimes patience doesn’t even pay off, as has been the case with Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico—they’re still hoping for their day to come.

Want to learn more about the states that could have been? This interactive graphic by the Wall Street Journal provides a glimpse of past tried-and-failed statehood campaigns. And the Lost States blog is filled with interesting tidbits about geographical oddities.

ON THE MAP

From the beginning, the founders were concerned about creating states of equal size to ensure as equal representation as possible. The original thirteen states came “as is,” but they hoped to even things out with subsequently added states. For example, Thomas Jefferson wrote a report to Congress recommending that all states have two degrees of height and four degrees of width. But for all their efforts, the U.S. map has evolved into quite a jigsaw puzzle.

Although few have been successful, efforts to carve out new states do raise valid questions about the lines on the U.S. map. In his book “How the States Got Their Shapes,” author Mark Stein illuminates the twists and turns in history that have molded the twists and turns in our state borders. Some of the resulting borders make sense—and some of them don’t. Is it worthwhile to consider redrawing state lines? If so, what would the U.S. map look like?

A 1981 book called “The Nine Nations of North America” suggested that regions in North America should be divided to reflect economic and cultural similarities. Here is what that map would look like:

Or, perhaps we could take a linguistic approach and create borders based on the pop vs. soda debate:

Or we could get into the spirit of the baseball season:

What do you think? How can we draw the lines on the U.S. map to create a more perfect union?

Until we figure it out, let’s stick with fifty. It’s such a nice, round number.

Holly Munson is a programs coordinator at the National Constitution Center and the assistant editor of Constitution Daily.

Puerto Rico statehood vote could be an election day wildcard

By Scott Bomboy | National Constitution Center – August 21, 2012

Today marks the anniversary of the last state to join the union, as Hawaii became the 50th state in 1959. But in three months, Puerto Rico faces a similar vote to become the 51st state.

And as of now, the results of its complicated statehood vote on November 6 are certainly up in the air.

Hawaii and Alaska (the 49th state) navigated a lot of political roadblocks to become states in the 1950s, since each state brought a pair of senators and a House member to Congress.

The Constitution is vague about the whole process of how a territory becomes a state, delegating the task to Congress.

In Article IV, Section 3, Congress is given the power to decide what states and territories are, but state legislatures would have to approve any act that would combine two existing states or form a new state from parts of other states. (So reuniting Pennsylvania and New Jersey, or Virginia, and West Virginia would be a very difficult task.)

[Related: Puerto Ricans reject constitutional changes in upset vote]
And because any state automatically gets two U.S. senators and at least one member in the House of Representatives,  statehood becomes even trickier if the balance of power is close in Congress.
Alaska faced a decade-long battle with Congress to become the 49th state that ended in January 1959. Its voters had first passed a statehood referendum in 1946, but they lobbied for another decade with Congress to get their request for statehood approved.

Hawaii helped and also complicated the approval process for Alaska, but a congressional compromise was brokered. After a vote in Hawaii and a separate act approving Hawaiian statehood, it became the 50th state on August 21, 1959.

And now, there is the issue of statehood for Puerto Rico. The island is a U.S. territory and its residents are U.S. citizens, but they don’t have voting congressional representation.

[Related: How to make a state? Three ways to redraw the U.S.A.]
So effectively, Puerto Rico residents can’t vote in the presidential general election. (Articles I and II of the Constitution says that only states can vote, and the 23rd Amendment extends voting rights to the District of Columbia.)

Another statehood referendum is set for Election Day, Tuesday, November 6, and the territorial governor, Luis Fortuno, is supporting statehood as the best option for Puerto Rico.

Other statehood votes failed in Puerto Rico in 1967, 1993, and 1998.

The 2012 vote is different because it has two parts. The first question asks voters if they want to move away from Puerto Rico’s territorial status.

The second part asks voters to choose three options other than remaining a territory:  becoming a U.S. state, an independent country, or a freely associated nation with legal ties to the United States.

To complicate matters, there are three major political parties in Puerto Rico, none of which align with the Democrats and Republicans–they are aligned to statehood, independence, and territory factions.

In a May 2012 poll,  the newspaper El Nuevo Dia found general confusion among potential voters.
About 51 percent didn’t want to move way from Puerto Rico’s territorial status and 45 percent didn’t fully understand all the ballot options. Only 36 percent supported statehood.

But in a twist, polling data on this Sunday’s referendum in Puerto Rico on territorial constitutional changes didn’t match how people voted.

Voters rejected constitutional amendments that limited bail rights and downsized the island’s legislature, despite strong support from Puerto Rico’s two biggest parties.

The vote is seen as a win for a third party that supports full independence for Puerto Rico.

On November 6, voter turnout will be high. Back in 2000, more than 80 percent of registered voters went to the polls. Puerto Rico residents vote at much higher rates than residents of the 50 states.

Back in 1998, voters in Puerto Rico were given four options: statehood, independence, a commonwealth, or none of the above. The majority picked “none of the above” as an option.

This time, a majority will need to pick statehood as an option if Puerto Rico’s quest to become a state will head to Congress.

The November referendum is a nonbinding resolution, but it could also take Puerto Rico down an unexpected path that could have wider political ramifications.

A tough economic climate in Puerto Rico is also a big factor in how the island will vote, in one of the most interesting subplots of Election Day.

 http://news.yahoo.com/puerto-rico-statehood-vote-could-election-day-wildcard-100210615.html

Enmiendas que le haría a la Constitución de Puerto Rico

Las enmiendas que yo le haría a la Constitución de Puerto Rico.

1. Enmienda para prohibir que se hagan consultas para enmendar la Constitución en un año electoral.

2. Enmienda para limitar el presupuesto de la Legislatura a una cantidad que no exceda el uno por ciento (1%) del presupuesto del gobierno central.

3. Enmienda para que la posición de Gobernador de Puerto Rico, requiera  una mayoría de  votos y no una pluralidad de votos.   Para evitar una segunda vuelta, sugiero lo que se conoce como el sistema australiano, también conocido como "instant runoff election".

4. Enmienda para que el Senado de Puerto Rico se convierta en un cuerpo de representación proporcional en igual proporción  a los votos que obtenga el candidato a gobernador de cada partido.

5. Aumentar en un cuarenta por ciento (40%) los miembros de la Legislatura para que haya la misma representatividad que existía cuando se aprobó la Constitución en 1952.

6.  Aumentar los términos de las posiciones electivas a seis años (6) sin derecho a la reelección para la misma posición electiva, excepto los alcaldes que podrían ser reelectos sin límite de términos.

7.  Elecciones separadas para las posiciones de Gobernador, Comisionado Residente y miembros del Senado y para las Alcaldías y la Cámara de Representantes.   Como los términos serían a 6 años habría elecciones para Gobernador, Comisionado Residente y Senadores y a mitad de término, a los tres años de las elecciones para las posiciones mencionadas anteriormente, se celebrarían las elecciones para Alcaldías y Representantes.

8.  Elecciones revocatorias (recall elections) por petición de electores.   En las elecciones de Alcaldes y Representantes irían a elección revocatoria las posiciones de Gobernador, Comisionado Residente y Senadores si hubiera una petición que cumpliera con los requisitos de revocación que dicte la Constitución.  Por el contrario en las elecciones para Gobernador, Comisionado Residente y Senadores se celebrarían las elecciones revocatorias (si alguna) para las Alcaldías y los puestos de representante, igualmente siempre que cumplan con lo que dictaría la Constitución para estos casos.

Posteriormente discutiré en más detalle estas sugerencias.   Invito a cualquier persona que desea incluir enmiendas adicionales las incluya en los comentarios.

7 de agosto de 2012 

El Nuevo Día

Prioridad en el gobierno a la educación de los niños dotados

Se trabajará en un currículo especial para atenderlos

 

El gobernador Luis Fortuño firmó ayer varias leyes para beneficiar a niños o jóvenes con un coeficiente intelectual superior.  (JOSE.REYES@GFRMEDIA.COM)

Por Gerardo Cordero / gerardo.cordero@gfrmedia

Río Grande - El gobernador Luis Fortuño firmó ayer dos proyectos de ley para impulsar el desarrollo de un programa educativo para niños sobresalientes, cuyo aprovechamiento académico suele ser acelerado.
Uno de los proyectos, el P. de la C. 3967, incluye una asignación de $750,000 para el Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo para Estudiantes Dotados y dispone que esa corporación coordine talleres para capacitar a maestros en el manejo adecuado de esos alumnos con coeficiente intelectual (IQ) igual o mayor de 130.
La legislación firmada por Fortuño facilitaría la aceleración parcial o total de ciertos alumnos, lo que eventualmente supone poder adelantarlos por materia o por grado, según la capacidad intelectual de esos estudiantes aventajados.
El otro proyecto, el P. de la S. 1999, promueve que se ponga en práctica un programa piloto para estudiantes dotados en las escuelas públicas.
El primer ejecutivo firmó ambos proyectos durante la reinauguración de la Escuela para el Siglo XXI, Pedro Falú Orellano.
“Hoy vamos a hacer justicia a un sector que lleva una lucha de más de una década y al que no se le había escuchado”, dijo Fortuño, al referirse a las iniciativas para beneficiar a niños con un alto coeficiente intelectual, que entiende merecen atención especial en el sistema público de enseñanza.
El coeficiente intelectual es la cifra que expresa la inteligencia relativa de una persona y que se determina tomando en consideración su edad mental y física, entre otras variables, aplicadas a una fórmula matemática sobre la capacidad de cada individuo.
Una prueba estandarizada es utilizada para medir habilidades cognitivas y la inteligencia relativa de una persona, según su grupo de edad, con el objetivo de determinar su coeficiente intelectual o IQ.
“Estos niños son claves para el futuro de Puerto Rico y no se les pueden atender necesariamente de igual forma que al resto de los estudiantes. Hay que darles más oportunidades para que lleven al máximo el potencial que Dios les dio”, puntualizó Fortuño.
Sobre el Proyecto 3967, Fortuño dijo que define el concepto de “niño dotado” y provee para que se creen currículos especiales, así como mecanismos de aceleración parcial, que se refiere a adelanto en una materia o asignatura de un nivel o grado.
También mencionó que si el alumno demuestra una capacidad intelectual y aprovechamiento amplio, podría ser adelantado un grado completo.
Acompañado por el secretario de Educación, Edward Moreno, el primer mandatario indicó que mediante la nueva ley se ordena hacer un registro de los niños dotados y afinar los servicios que se le brindarán en el futuro a esa población en el sistema público de enseñanza. La nueva ley estipula un término de 120 días para crear un reglamento sobre la educación a la niñez dotada.
Según el sicólogo Luis Sánchez Caso, especialista en niños dotados, en el sistema público hay más de 10,000 niños sobresalientes que necesitan atención especial en la escuela porque algunos tienden a aburrirse en el salón de clase y, en ciertos casos, pueden llegar a convertirse hasta en desertores escolares.
Sánchez Caso y Héctor Rivera, director del Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo para Niños Dotados, quienes acompañaron a Fortuño, llamaron la atención sobre la necesidad de adiestrar a los maestros sobre cómo trabajar con esos alumnos.
“Urge sensibilizar a los maestros y darles las herramientas” para atender mejor a estos niños, indicó Rivera, quien se reunirá con Moreno para comenzar a desarrollar el plan de trabajo que impone las medidas firmadas por el gobernador.
Asimismo, la nueva ley provee para que el Instituto, en coordinación con el DE, establezca evaluaciones sicológicas para identificar estudiantes potencialmente dotados y para orientar a esos estudiantes y a sus progenitores.
Los expertos mencionaron que en ciertas ocasiones un estudiante dotado o de alto coeficiente intelectual puede ser blanco de acoso (bullying) en la escuela y es importante ayudarle y evitar que sea denigrado. En otros casos, es preciso combatir su aburrimiento porque domina rápido todo el material de una clase o varias materias.
Ley para beneficiar a los niños dotados
Define el término:
Niño o joven con un cociente intelectual igual o mayor de 130.
Posee una capacidad social y cognitiva excepcional, por encima de su edad cronológica y superior a la de otros de su misma edad.
Mediante evaluaciones psicológicas y educativas realizadas por profesionales certificados por el Estado, alta capacidad intelectual, creativa, artística o de liderazgo, o en una o más áreas académicas específicas.
Mandato de la ley:
Ordena hacer un registro de niños dotados y afinar los servicios que se le brindarán en el futuro a esa población en el sistema público de enseñanza.
Estipula un término de 120 días para crear un reglamento sobre la educación a la niñez dotada.

Muere la última tortuga terrestre gigante de las Islas Galápagos

http://boricuaencanarias.blogspot.com/2012/06/muere-george-el-solitario.html?utm_source=BP_recent