11 ms·

Bill to allow corporate landowners to vote in elections in Seaford, Delaware

171 points by lamontcg 3y ago

jacknews 3y ago
democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the oth ... wait what? pieces of paper get a vote now?
telotortium 3y ago
""" View Substitute: HS 1 for HB 121 Introduced on: 4/20/23 Primary Sponsor: D. Short Additional Sponsor(s): Sen. Richardson Co-Sponsor(s): Long Title: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SEAFORD RELATING TO THE CITY'S ABILITY TO AUTHORIZE ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES, LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATIONS' PARTNERSHIPS AND TRUSTS TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS HELD IN SEAFORD. Original Synopsis: This bill would allow the City of Seaford to authorize artificial entities, limited liability corporations' partnerships and trusts to vote in Municipal elections held in Seaford. """
- HWR_14 3y ago
  You have to love that the long title doesn't say whether it is adding or removing the ability to let corporations vote.
  - datenyan 3y ago
    The core tenant of legalise to use many word to say few thing
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      I would dearly love to see your paraphrase of this proposed statute. I am quite certain we could all learn something.
Havoc 3y ago
It's like someone took a dystopian sci-fi and thought it is a how-to guide
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  If you're a person and you have 10 LLCs, does that mean you get 11 votes?
  - elforce002 3y ago
    Interesting. This a valid question given this bill. Man, the US is kickin'it these last years.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Does each LLC own property in the applicable town?
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    Yes
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
The City of London does this. For purely municipal matters, in places with a large commuter population, this can make sense—it gives voice to the people who work alongside those who live there. (Given present politics, a vote for workers might play better.)
- ThunderSizzle 3y ago
  Do the workers get a vote, or just the corporation? I think every person should have a say in the laws where they live, and that includes where they work. Sadly most people get one vote based on one address
  - Niksko 3y ago
    Which do you think? Of course the corporations. In Melbourne, Australia, the local government that covers the downtown area and a few surrounding suburbs gives 2 votes to businesses and 1 vote to residents. Guess what kind of policy exists? Highly pro business, growing inequality for residents.
    - blibble 3y ago
      > Which do you think? Of course the corporations. uh, but it's not the worker has the vote (and I say this as one of them)
- smeyer 3y ago
  There's a big difference between giving a voice to "the people who work [there] " versus to the people who own businesses there.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > a big difference between giving a voice to "the people who work [there] " versus to the people who own businesses there There is, and in it a tradeoff. The businesses will prioritise growth over liveability and working conditions. Workers working conditions; both will select for incumbency. Residents (within and without) want living conditions and, if they’re economically literate, competition in both business and labour. It’s an interesting topic that doesn’t deserve dismissal at face value.
abeppu 3y ago
Is it normal for the state legislature to make changes to a city charter? Why Seaford? The title and synopsis are hiding some important info here. - currently 'bona fide resident' requires owning property for 6 months - with the changes in the bill, natural persons don't need to own property to be qualified to vote, but corporations do - and non-resident natural persons who own property in the city are also eligible So unfortunately it is _not_ as easy as creating a bunch of shell corporations to create a big external voting block; you also have to be able to buy property for each of them. https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=130205&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=HB121 https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocum...
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  To be honest your best bet is probably a whole bunch of general partnerships that are all general partners in a general partnership that owns some land in town. It’s going to cost you a couple bucks to set up a LLC and even more for a corporation but you can form a partnership for free in a bout eight words.
- nescioquid 3y ago
  Sounds like a cottage industry in the making.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Is it normal for the state legislature to make changes to a city charter? Why Seaford? Depends on context. New York City, for example, ceded control to Albany after going bankrupt. The same path appears proximate for San Francisco. In this case it looks like enabling legislation. Dover isn’t giving Seaford’s corporations a vote. It’s giving Seaford the right to give corporations a vote.
  - abeppu 3y ago
    > In this case it looks like enabling legislation. Dover isn’t giving Seaford’s corporations a vote. It’s giving Seaford the right to give corporations a vote. What leads you to say this? I'm a layperson so I may be missing something, but the language that the bill adds as section 7(A)(2) seems like it is saying (property-owning) corporations are qualified voters, and 7(B) doesn't seem like it gives the city some discretion to decide among qualified voters who can actually register.
animal_spirits 3y ago
Freakonomics did an excellent podcast investigation on the corruption and efficiency of the Delaware legal code regarding corporations, bankruptcy, tax evasion and money laundering. According to the people they interviewed, almost all laws regarding any business practices are written not by lawmakers but by lawyers. Honestly, I couldn't figure out whether that was good or bad, but it seemed dishonest because lawyers aren't responsible to adhere to the values of the constituents of the state. - https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-does-one-tiny-state-set-the-rules-for-everyone/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-does-one-tiny-state-set...
- danielheath 3y ago
  To me, that’s like complaining that software requirements are written by software people instead of user representatives; sure, you can do it the other way around, but it largely leads to poorly written requirements.
  - thghtihadanacct 3y ago
    ... but at least those poorly written requirements benefit the user. I would rather less than perfect rules written to benefit me, the citizen, than calculated rules written to benefit corporations that have enough money to play this shell game.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      Poorly written requirements benefit someone, but there's not really any reason to think it would benefit you specifically. They may just as well benefit someone who seeks to harm you, or at minimum doesn't care what happens to you.
    - danielheath 3y ago
      If the user wants software that actually meets their needs, they want the requirements to be reasonably unambiguous, to have interactions with other tech thought through, etc. To achieve that requires special training, and paying someone with that training to figure that stuff out is a good idea. If you want laws that actually function in the legal system, pay a lawyer to write them (at your direction). "Written by a lawyer" does not mean "to represent the lawyers interests" any more than "written by a developer" means "to represent the developers interests".
cies 3y ago
Why? Lobbying is already legal! Ahh... They (1) want to put the lobbyist out of business, or (2) all the "good" lobbyists are working in DC so Delaware is getting creative :) Do matter why, this is still another nail in the coffin of democracy.
- Fauntleroy 3y ago
  Damn, maybe we should protest or something?
  - cies 3y ago
    Is Fauntleroy the lobbyist on HN? :)
nostromo 3y ago
It’s not so crazy if you follow Delaware history. Let’s say you live in Baltimore but also own a house in a small resort town. In Delaware, that town can decide to let you vote in Baltimore and at your vacation home. Legally they do this by saying city elections are open to both residents and property owners (regardless of where they live). That all seems pretty reasonable for small resort towns. But a lot of property is owned by trusts, llcs, and corporations. So this would include those property owners as well.
- ineedasername 3y ago
  I don't think that the massive and countless # "artificial" entities that incorporate in Delaware for the purpose of legal arbitrage should have a say in how the actual people that actually live in the state go about living the lives on a daily basis. Even following Delaware history, it does in fact seem crazy to me.
  - nostromo 3y ago
    This isn’t about all Delaware corporations, it’d only allow corporations that own property in the tiny town of Seaford to vote in Seaford.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Thank you for steelmanning this. Most of the other comments resolve to textual downvotes. I don't necessarily blame people for this but it makes for useless discussion.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    > Thank you for steelmanning this. For steelmanning what, and what argument or rebuttal are they making? > Most of the other comments resolve to textual downvotes. What does this mean?
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      I agree. All I can steelman from it is "it's not crazy if you know that [people have generally been able to own a vacation home and vote]"
1970-01-01 3y ago
Allow us to execute corporations and we have a deal.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Allow us to execute corporations and we have a deal Fine, you dissolve the charter. What now? What happens to the entity’s assets? Its debts? Every proposal for a “corporate death penalty” is expropriation or fining, except with extra steps. Hell, if a regular threatened you with a fine and you could pull a “corporate death” card, why wouldn’t you do it?
  - 1970-01-01 3y ago
    1. Pay the lawyers. 2. Pay the parking fee. 3. Buy a stick of gum.
teagee 3y ago
Seaford, the city to which this would apply, was once regarded as "The Nylon Capital of the World"! https://www.capegazette.com/affiliate-post/remembering-nylon-capital-world/123684 https://www.capegazette.com/affiliate-post/remembering-nylon...
JohnFen 3y ago
This idea is utterly and completely terrifying. I don't see how anything but bad can come of it.
ineedasername 3y ago
Stuff the ballot box! Seems like it would be relatively cheap for a corporation(s) to register countless entities "including but not limited to corporations, partnerships, trusts, and limited liability companies", which already register there for legal arbitrage, and then really create their own set of rules.
- lkbm 3y ago
  You have to own property there, but maybe you can have an endless number of corporations share ownership of a property, or divide up the property into arbitrarily small parcels. Not sure how much work I'd be willing to go through to gain control of Seaford DE, though.
- nostromo 3y ago
  That would be quite the loophole! Except it’s specifically outlawed in the bill. This also isn’t for Delaware the state, it’s for a small town in Delaware called Seaford. And remember, each llc has to own property in Seaford to vote in city elections. So I suppose a large group of people could spend millions of dollars to sway a city council election for a town with a few thousand residents.
  - count 3y ago
    How many ways can you split ownership? Is it just a majority 51%+ owner of the property?
    - nostromo 3y ago
      The bill seems to say that if 1,000 people own a parcel of property with a corporation, the corporation would get one vote. Also, if an individual owns many llcs, they only get one individual vote. So the absolute maximum votes would be city residents + city parcels.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        What does the bill say about jointly owned real estate? Like two people owning one vacation house? Do they each get one vote? Then what about three different LLCs that each own 33% of a piece of real estate? Then what about multiple series of a series LLC jointly owning a property? The individual series of a Delaware Series LLC do not need to be recorded in the articles of organization or registered anywhere else [0]. So you can create one series LLC and then unilaterally create an infinite number of distinct legal entities, each owning a small share of some real estate. Surely each series can't get its own whole vote. [0] by my quick skimming of the bill the entity would have to be registered in the city's list of voters. No idea if there is a fee for an entity registering to vote, or whether the city could legally balk if you showed up with a stack of ten thousand voter registrations.
nonethewiser 3y ago
No taxation without representation. I would prefer just dropping the taxation personally.
- brewdad 3y ago
  I paid taxes of one sort or another in about ten states and probably 30 municipalities over the past year. Should I get a vote in all of them?
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    The better question is, should you get to vote in at least one? That's what this would make possible for corporations.
tedunangst 3y ago
Present charter: https://charters.delaware.gov/seaford.shtml https://charters.delaware.gov/seaford.shtml
wnevets 3y ago
Is this capitalism's final form?
jawns 3y ago
I'm a longtime Delawarean. For context, Seaford, the city to which this would apply, is in a section of the state pejoratively known as "Slower Lower" Delaware. It's largely rural and largely conservative -- at least compared with the top part of the state and the beach areas. The bill's sponsors are both Republicans, who hold minorities in both the state House and the state Senate. As you can see in this map of 2020 presidential election results, although the state is heavily blue, Seaford is in the only county where Trump got a majority of votes: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/delaware/ https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/delaware/ My take is that this is a political statement more than a legitimate legislative attempt.
lkbm 3y ago
Can we get the title updated? This is specifically votes in the city of Seaford. We aren't going to see state or federal elections flooded with corporate votes. It's one town of 8,000 people trying to allow non-residents who own property through LLCs still vote. It might be bad, but the title feels misleading to me.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mr90210 3y ago
  Could it become a precedent for federal-wide votes?
  - ajdude 3y ago
    This is actually routinely happening in Delaware, several other cities including Newark have enacted this law. From another comment [1]: > In Newark, Delaware’s third-biggest city, a similar rule allowed one property manager to vote 31 times in a local referendum in 2018, one for each of the LLCs their company owned https://www.promarket.org/2022/05/23/delaware-the-state-where-companies-can-vote/ https://www.promarket.org/2022/05/23/delaware-the-state-wher... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36425994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36425994
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Damn! Well, there's a good reason to never live in Delaware!
      - antonvs 3y ago
        Depends how many LLCs you own.
        webkike 3y ago
        you still don't need to live in Delaware. Hence, the law
ajdude 3y ago
Delaware resident here. It's been happening for years: > In Newark, Delaware’s third-biggest city, a similar rule allowed one property manager to vote 31 times in a local referendum in 2018, one for each of the LLCs their company owned https://www.promarket.org/2022/05/23/delaware-the-state-where-companies-can-vote/ https://www.promarket.org/2022/05/23/delaware-the-state-wher...
- TX81Z 3y ago
  It boggles my mind that we basically have an on-shore tax haven and nobody seems to give a shit.
  - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    Read Moneyland, then. Nevada's in competition with Delaware to be even friendlier.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    Delaware's not really a tax haven. They're in the lower half of states wrt corporate tax burden last time I checked, but that's not the main benefit. IANAL, but the main thing they I've heard they provide corporations is legal stability via their court system. Since just about every major corporation is registered in Delaware, they have precedent for just about every goofy b2b contract dispute. This allows for two very nice effects: 1) predictability about how cases will go if they hit the courts; 2) the court system tends to work very quickly when there is a dispute. A good recent example of this was Elon Musk's dispute around purchasing twitter. Musk very obviously didn't want the deal to go through, twitter filed suit in mid july, and just three months they were a day before trial and Musk decided to buy the company as twitter was demanding. Musk ostensibly had every reason to delay as long as possible, with essentially unbounded amounts of resources to do so, and all with what sounds like a pretty goofy contract. A great example of a complex-ish b2b contract problem working it's way very quickly through the system (ie. going to trial within three months), and leaving both sides sure enough at that point of the final outcome to solve their problem without actually going to trial. Great system for inter-corporate stability.
williape 3y ago
We have this for City of Melbourne in Australia. For city votes, it's compulsory for company representatives to lodge votes. "In some cases a voter may have a number of entitlements to vote. For example, a voter may be a resident, own a property and be a director of a company that owns or occupies rateable property within the municipality." https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/governance-transparency/elections/enrolling-to-vote/Pages/enrolling-to-vote.aspx https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/governance-tr...
627467 3y ago
It's funny to read so many commenters take on supposedly antidemocratic aspects of such bill while completely negating the democratic right of those who live in those places to actually decide what is deemed democratic for them.
- brewdad 3y ago
  Who said any of these llc owners live in Delaware? They may but not necessarily. Also, we’ve long had the concept of having only one residence. You may own property in multiple places but you are only a resident of one. You may be a tax resident of multiple places but you are only a resident of one. Anything else IS anti-democratic as it favors the fortunate over the common person.
LegitShady 3y ago
The future seems more dystopian all the time. Disenfranchising the votes of human citizens to award votes to legal concepts is obscene.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Only land owning corporations should be allowed to vote.
- brewdad 3y ago
  Constitutional originalism FTW.
lockhouse 3y ago
We might as well just cut out the middle-men. Screw it, can we just elect corporations directly to Congress and be done with it? At least then we could stop pretending that these jerks represent the people.
olliej 3y ago
Can a corporation go to jail? Can a corporation be subject to the 13th amendment's provision to force slave labor? If not, wtf can a corporation vote?
avidphantasm 3y ago
Time to force Delaware out of the United States. We can let Puerto Rico in and Delaware can be their own country or something. Anything to stop their obscene obeisance to corporations from making things worse for the rest of us.
- sterlind 3y ago
  if we keep the number of states equal we don't have to reprint all our flags.
  - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    Puerto Rico is a triple tax freebie.
mrcwinn 3y ago
And now imagine the majority shareholders of those corporations are foreign entities.
sacnoradhq 3y ago
This is unnecessary as they already buy politicians outright with essentially unlimited money from corporate interests. It just confirms the charade as an undemocratic lie. "I don’t vote. Fuck ’em. FUCK THEM. I don't vote. Two reasons. Two reasons I don’t vote: first of all, it’s meaningless. This country was bought and sold and paid for a long time ago. The shit they shuffle around every four years doesn’t mean a fuckin’ thing. And secondly, I don't vote 'cause I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around. I know, they say, they say: "well if you don't vote you have no right to complain". But where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done, YOU caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with." - George Carlin
kthejoker2 3y ago
This is just votes for representation in local government which is already something like a smoothing function over a largely stochastic process. Voting is also the least effective method to influence and lobby in local politics; corporations and wealthy outsiders of course long held the upper hand in this space.

171 points by lamontcg 3y ago

democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the oth ... wait what? pieces of paper get a vote now?

""" View Substitute: HS 1 for HB 121 Introduced on: 4/20/23 Primary Sponsor: D. Short Additional Sponsor(s): Sen. Richardson Co-Sponsor(s): Long Title: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SEAFORD RELATING TO THE CITY'S ABILITY TO AUTHORIZE ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES, LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATIONS' PARTNERSHIPS AND TRUSTS TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS HELD IN SEAFORD. Original Synopsis: This bill would allow the City of Seaford to authorize artificial entities, limited liability corporations' partnerships and trusts to vote in Municipal elections held in Seaford. """

HWR_14 3y ago
You have to love that the long title doesn't say whether it is adding or removing the ability to let corporations vote.
- datenyan 3y ago
  The core tenant of legalise to use many word to say few thing
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    I would dearly love to see your paraphrase of this proposed statute. I am quite certain we could all learn something.

Havoc 3y ago

It's like someone took a dystopian sci-fi and thought it is a how-to guide

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
If you're a person and you have 10 LLCs, does that mean you get 11 votes?
- elforce002 3y ago
  Interesting. This a valid question given this bill. Man, the US is kickin'it these last years.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Does each LLC own property in the applicable town?
- sangnoir 3y ago
  Yes

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

The City of London does this. For purely municipal matters, in places with a large commuter population, this can make sense—it gives voice to the people who work alongside those who live there. (Given present politics, a vote for workers might play better.)

ThunderSizzle 3y ago
Do the workers get a vote, or just the corporation? I think every person should have a say in the laws where they live, and that includes where they work. Sadly most people get one vote based on one address
- Niksko 3y ago
  Which do you think? Of course the corporations. In Melbourne, Australia, the local government that covers the downtown area and a few surrounding suburbs gives 2 votes to businesses and 1 vote to residents. Guess what kind of policy exists? Highly pro business, growing inequality for residents.
  - blibble 3y ago
    > Which do you think? Of course the corporations. uh, but it's not the worker has the vote (and I say this as one of them)
smeyer 3y ago
There's a big difference between giving a voice to "the people who work [there] " versus to the people who own businesses there.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > a big difference between giving a voice to "the people who work [there] " versus to the people who own businesses there There is, and in it a tradeoff. The businesses will prioritise growth over liveability and working conditions. Workers working conditions; both will select for incumbency. Residents (within and without) want living conditions and, if they’re economically literate, competition in both business and labour. It’s an interesting topic that doesn’t deserve dismissal at face value.

abeppu 3y ago

Is it normal for the state legislature to make changes to a city charter? Why Seaford? The title and synopsis are hiding some important info here. - currently 'bona fide resident' requires owning property for 6 months - with the changes in the bill, natural persons don't need to own property to be qualified to vote, but corporations do - and non-resident natural persons who own property in the city are also eligible So unfortunately it is _not_ as easy as creating a bunch of shell corporations to create a big external voting block; you also have to be able to buy property for each of them. https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=130205&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=HB121 https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocum...

singleshot_ 3y ago
To be honest your best bet is probably a whole bunch of general partnerships that are all general partners in a general partnership that owns some land in town. It’s going to cost you a couple bucks to set up a LLC and even more for a corporation but you can form a partnership for free in a bout eight words.
nescioquid 3y ago
Sounds like a cottage industry in the making.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Is it normal for the state legislature to make changes to a city charter? Why Seaford? Depends on context. New York City, for example, ceded control to Albany after going bankrupt. The same path appears proximate for San Francisco. In this case it looks like enabling legislation. Dover isn’t giving Seaford’s corporations a vote. It’s giving Seaford the right to give corporations a vote.
- abeppu 3y ago
  > In this case it looks like enabling legislation. Dover isn’t giving Seaford’s corporations a vote. It’s giving Seaford the right to give corporations a vote. What leads you to say this? I'm a layperson so I may be missing something, but the language that the bill adds as section 7(A)(2) seems like it is saying (property-owning) corporations are qualified voters, and 7(B) doesn't seem like it gives the city some discretion to decide among qualified voters who can actually register.

animal_spirits 3y ago

Freakonomics did an excellent podcast investigation on the corruption and efficiency of the Delaware legal code regarding corporations, bankruptcy, tax evasion and money laundering. According to the people they interviewed, almost all laws regarding any business practices are written not by lawmakers but by lawyers. Honestly, I couldn't figure out whether that was good or bad, but it seemed dishonest because lawyers aren't responsible to adhere to the values of the constituents of the state. - https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-does-one-tiny-state-set-the-rules-for-everyone/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-does-one-tiny-state-set...

danielheath 3y ago
To me, that’s like complaining that software requirements are written by software people instead of user representatives; sure, you can do it the other way around, but it largely leads to poorly written requirements.
- thghtihadanacct 3y ago
  ... but at least those poorly written requirements benefit the user. I would rather less than perfect rules written to benefit me, the citizen, than calculated rules written to benefit corporations that have enough money to play this shell game.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    Poorly written requirements benefit someone, but there's not really any reason to think it would benefit you specifically. They may just as well benefit someone who seeks to harm you, or at minimum doesn't care what happens to you.
  - danielheath 3y ago
    If the user wants software that actually meets their needs, they want the requirements to be reasonably unambiguous, to have interactions with other tech thought through, etc. To achieve that requires special training, and paying someone with that training to figure that stuff out is a good idea. If you want laws that actually function in the legal system, pay a lawyer to write them (at your direction). "Written by a lawyer" does not mean "to represent the lawyers interests" any more than "written by a developer" means "to represent the developers interests".

cies 3y ago

Why? Lobbying is already legal! Ahh... They (1) want to put the lobbyist out of business, or (2) all the "good" lobbyists are working in DC so Delaware is getting creative :) Do matter why, this is still another nail in the coffin of democracy.

Fauntleroy 3y ago
Damn, maybe we should protest or something?
- cies 3y ago
  Is Fauntleroy the lobbyist on HN? :)

nostromo 3y ago

It’s not so crazy if you follow Delaware history. Let’s say you live in Baltimore but also own a house in a small resort town. In Delaware, that town can decide to let you vote in Baltimore and at your vacation home. Legally they do this by saying city elections are open to both residents and property owners (regardless of where they live). That all seems pretty reasonable for small resort towns. But a lot of property is owned by trusts, llcs, and corporations. So this would include those property owners as well.

ineedasername 3y ago
I don't think that the massive and countless # "artificial" entities that incorporate in Delaware for the purpose of legal arbitrage should have a say in how the actual people that actually live in the state go about living the lives on a daily basis. Even following Delaware history, it does in fact seem crazy to me.
- nostromo 3y ago
  This isn’t about all Delaware corporations, it’d only allow corporations that own property in the tiny town of Seaford to vote in Seaford.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Thank you for steelmanning this. Most of the other comments resolve to textual downvotes. I don't necessarily blame people for this but it makes for useless discussion.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  > Thank you for steelmanning this. For steelmanning what, and what argument or rebuttal are they making? > Most of the other comments resolve to textual downvotes. What does this mean?
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    I agree. All I can steelman from it is "it's not crazy if you know that [people have generally been able to own a vacation home and vote]"

1970-01-01 3y ago

Allow us to execute corporations and we have a deal.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Allow us to execute corporations and we have a deal Fine, you dissolve the charter. What now? What happens to the entity’s assets? Its debts? Every proposal for a “corporate death penalty” is expropriation or fining, except with extra steps. Hell, if a regular threatened you with a fine and you could pull a “corporate death” card, why wouldn’t you do it?
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  1. Pay the lawyers. 2. Pay the parking fee. 3. Buy a stick of gum.

teagee 3y ago

Seaford, the city to which this would apply, was once regarded as "The Nylon Capital of the World"! https://www.capegazette.com/affiliate-post/remembering-nylon-capital-world/123684 https://www.capegazette.com/affiliate-post/remembering-nylon...

JohnFen 3y ago

This idea is utterly and completely terrifying. I don't see how anything but bad can come of it.

ineedasername 3y ago

Stuff the ballot box! Seems like it would be relatively cheap for a corporation(s) to register countless entities "including but not limited to corporations, partnerships, trusts, and limited liability companies", which already register there for legal arbitrage, and then really create their own set of rules.

lkbm 3y ago
You have to own property there, but maybe you can have an endless number of corporations share ownership of a property, or divide up the property into arbitrarily small parcels. Not sure how much work I'd be willing to go through to gain control of Seaford DE, though.
nostromo 3y ago
That would be quite the loophole! Except it’s specifically outlawed in the bill. This also isn’t for Delaware the state, it’s for a small town in Delaware called Seaford. And remember, each llc has to own property in Seaford to vote in city elections. So I suppose a large group of people could spend millions of dollars to sway a city council election for a town with a few thousand residents.
- count 3y ago
  How many ways can you split ownership? Is it just a majority 51%+ owner of the property?
  - nostromo 3y ago
    The bill seems to say that if 1,000 people own a parcel of property with a corporation, the corporation would get one vote. Also, if an individual owns many llcs, they only get one individual vote. So the absolute maximum votes would be city residents + city parcels.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      What does the bill say about jointly owned real estate? Like two people owning one vacation house? Do they each get one vote? Then what about three different LLCs that each own 33% of a piece of real estate? Then what about multiple series of a series LLC jointly owning a property? The individual series of a Delaware Series LLC do not need to be recorded in the articles of organization or registered anywhere else [0]. So you can create one series LLC and then unilaterally create an infinite number of distinct legal entities, each owning a small share of some real estate. Surely each series can't get its own whole vote. [0] by my quick skimming of the bill the entity would have to be registered in the city's list of voters. No idea if there is a fee for an entity registering to vote, or whether the city could legally balk if you showed up with a stack of ten thousand voter registrations.

nonethewiser 3y ago

No taxation without representation. I would prefer just dropping the taxation personally.

brewdad 3y ago
I paid taxes of one sort or another in about ten states and probably 30 municipalities over the past year. Should I get a vote in all of them?
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  The better question is, should you get to vote in at least one? That's what this would make possible for corporations.

tedunangst 3y ago

Present charter: https://charters.delaware.gov/seaford.shtml https://charters.delaware.gov/seaford.shtml

wnevets 3y ago

Is this capitalism's final form?

jawns 3y ago

I'm a longtime Delawarean. For context, Seaford, the city to which this would apply, is in a section of the state pejoratively known as "Slower Lower" Delaware. It's largely rural and largely conservative -- at least compared with the top part of the state and the beach areas. The bill's sponsors are both Republicans, who hold minorities in both the state House and the state Senate. As you can see in this map of 2020 presidential election results, although the state is heavily blue, Seaford is in the only county where Trump got a majority of votes: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/delaware/ https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/delaware/ My take is that this is a political statement more than a legitimate legislative attempt.

lkbm 3y ago

Can we get the title updated? This is specifically votes in the city of Seaford. We aren't going to see state or federal elections flooded with corporate votes. It's one town of 8,000 people trying to allow non-residents who own property through LLCs still vote. It might be bad, but the title feels misleading to me.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mr90210 3y ago
Could it become a precedent for federal-wide votes?
- ajdude 3y ago
  This is actually routinely happening in Delaware, several other cities including Newark have enacted this law. From another comment [1]: > In Newark, Delaware’s third-biggest city, a similar rule allowed one property manager to vote 31 times in a local referendum in 2018, one for each of the LLCs their company owned https://www.promarket.org/2022/05/23/delaware-the-state-where-companies-can-vote/ https://www.promarket.org/2022/05/23/delaware-the-state-wher... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36425994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36425994
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Damn! Well, there's a good reason to never live in Delaware!
    - antonvs 3y ago
      Depends how many LLCs you own.
      - webkike 3y ago
        you still don't need to live in Delaware. Hence, the law

ajdude 3y ago

Delaware resident here. It's been happening for years: > In Newark, Delaware’s third-biggest city, a similar rule allowed one property manager to vote 31 times in a local referendum in 2018, one for each of the LLCs their company owned https://www.promarket.org/2022/05/23/delaware-the-state-where-companies-can-vote/ https://www.promarket.org/2022/05/23/delaware-the-state-wher...

TX81Z 3y ago
It boggles my mind that we basically have an on-shore tax haven and nobody seems to give a shit.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  Read Moneyland, then. Nevada's in competition with Delaware to be even friendlier.
- monocasa 3y ago
  Delaware's not really a tax haven. They're in the lower half of states wrt corporate tax burden last time I checked, but that's not the main benefit. IANAL, but the main thing they I've heard they provide corporations is legal stability via their court system. Since just about every major corporation is registered in Delaware, they have precedent for just about every goofy b2b contract dispute. This allows for two very nice effects: 1) predictability about how cases will go if they hit the courts; 2) the court system tends to work very quickly when there is a dispute. A good recent example of this was Elon Musk's dispute around purchasing twitter. Musk very obviously didn't want the deal to go through, twitter filed suit in mid july, and just three months they were a day before trial and Musk decided to buy the company as twitter was demanding. Musk ostensibly had every reason to delay as long as possible, with essentially unbounded amounts of resources to do so, and all with what sounds like a pretty goofy contract. A great example of a complex-ish b2b contract problem working it's way very quickly through the system (ie. going to trial within three months), and leaving both sides sure enough at that point of the final outcome to solve their problem without actually going to trial. Great system for inter-corporate stability.

williape 3y ago

We have this for City of Melbourne in Australia. For city votes, it's compulsory for company representatives to lodge votes. "In some cases a voter may have a number of entitlements to vote. For example, a voter may be a resident, own a property and be a director of a company that owns or occupies rateable property within the municipality." https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/governance-transparency/elections/enrolling-to-vote/Pages/enrolling-to-vote.aspx https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/governance-tr...

627467 3y ago

It's funny to read so many commenters take on supposedly antidemocratic aspects of such bill while completely negating the democratic right of those who live in those places to actually decide what is deemed democratic for them.

brewdad 3y ago
Who said any of these llc owners live in Delaware? They may but not necessarily. Also, we’ve long had the concept of having only one residence. You may own property in multiple places but you are only a resident of one. You may be a tax resident of multiple places but you are only a resident of one. Anything else IS anti-democratic as it favors the fortunate over the common person.

LegitShady 3y ago

The future seems more dystopian all the time. Disenfranchising the votes of human citizens to award votes to legal concepts is obscene.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Only land owning corporations should be allowed to vote.

brewdad 3y ago
Constitutional originalism FTW.

lockhouse 3y ago

We might as well just cut out the middle-men. Screw it, can we just elect corporations directly to Congress and be done with it? At least then we could stop pretending that these jerks represent the people.

olliej 3y ago

Can a corporation go to jail? Can a corporation be subject to the 13th amendment's provision to force slave labor? If not, wtf can a corporation vote?

avidphantasm 3y ago

Time to force Delaware out of the United States. We can let Puerto Rico in and Delaware can be their own country or something. Anything to stop their obscene obeisance to corporations from making things worse for the rest of us.

sterlind 3y ago
if we keep the number of states equal we don't have to reprint all our flags.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  Puerto Rico is a triple tax freebie.

mrcwinn 3y ago

And now imagine the majority shareholders of those corporations are foreign entities.

sacnoradhq 3y ago

This is unnecessary as they already buy politicians outright with essentially unlimited money from corporate interests. It just confirms the charade as an undemocratic lie. "I don’t vote. Fuck ’em. FUCK THEM. I don't vote. Two reasons. Two reasons I don’t vote: first of all, it’s meaningless. This country was bought and sold and paid for a long time ago. The shit they shuffle around every four years doesn’t mean a fuckin’ thing. And secondly, I don't vote 'cause I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around. I know, they say, they say: "well if you don't vote you have no right to complain". But where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done, YOU caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with." - George Carlin

kthejoker2 3y ago

This is just votes for representation in local government which is already something like a smoothing function over a largely stochastic process. Voting is also the least effective method to influence and lobby in local politics; corporations and wealthy outsiders of course long held the upper hand in this space.