> Since Puerto Rico has no senators or representatives, how can it have electors created by statute?

Because my assertion goes against conventional wisdom and it is only a conversation about a conversation, it would seem I need to go back to 8th grade civics class for a refresher on our federal system.  The underlying premise to my assertion was not stated.  If you disagree with my fundamental basis than don't even bother trying to dismatle the argument, it falls apart.

Before we get to electors we need voters.  Electors, either directly or indirectly are chosen by voters.  Article II provides for a state apportionment of electors.  Article II does not convey individual rights, that is done in large part in our Bill of Rights.  We do not have an enumerated right to vote generally although several of the Amendments do address aspects of voting.  The Supreme Court tried to tell us we didn't have a constitutional right to vote in Bush v. Gore (and other cases as well) and yet the public keeps on thinking it has a right to vote.  We hear about the right to vote all the time.  What if we have the right to vote under the Ninth Amendment?  If the Ninth protects a citizen's right to vote for President then the inferior status of citizens residing in the territories is untenable.  Under the Treaty of Paris the fate of Puerto Rico is exclusively in the hands of Congress.  Congress, by statute, granted citizenship to the residents of the territory in 1917.  Congress can also, by statute, apportion electors in proportion to the population, which in the case of Puerto Rico would be eight electors.  No harm comes to the republic and all U.S. citizens get to have a vote for the national leader.