5 ms·

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 deci

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]"
duxup 3y ago
> That all seems pretty reasonable for small resort towns. Maybe but I can imagine locals who live there full time having problems getting city see that a guy who lives there 3 weeks a year doesn’t care about.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I can imagine locals who live there full time having problems getting city see that a guy who lives there 3 weeks a year doesn’t care about There is a balance of interests. That doesn’t mean anyone not somewhere all the time should get zero representation. This is part of finding that balance.
  - 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
    > There is a balance of interests. Literally what? If this isn't the meaningless bullshit it sounds like, I will be stunned.
  - msrenee 3y ago
    Just as a practical example, in my area, we've got all kinds of property owned by people who live halfway across the country. I've got a particular individual in mind who lives in New York and has never resided in this state. He owns about a 1/4 mile stretch of strip mall in my parent's city. The buildings are getting rough and the roads and parking lots look like a war zone. If a similar law was enacted here, he'd get to vote in local elections in spite of the fact that his only ties to the area are in real estate holdings. He has no interest in that city being a decent place to live and I can't imagine he'd hesitate to support legislation that would increase his short-term profits at the expense of the city's residents.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
comte7092 3y ago
That practice is pretty antithetical to modern Democratic values though. ie one person, one vote.
- chx 3y ago
  I really must note this ideal is already not practiced in the United States, in fact it never was. The Electoral College, the Senate, the Supreme Court ensures this. After Citizens United I wouldn't be surprised at all if eventually corporate federal vote happened.
  - comte7092 3y ago
    There is a ton of Supreme Court case law that disagrees with you.[0] >in fact it never was. The Electoral College, the Senate, the Supreme Court ensures this. Note my use of the word modern. All of those (elected) institutions are ossified in place due to the herculean effort it would take to modify them. They are products of a time when that was very much not a settled value in the United States. [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule Note that as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, such rules allow people who own multiple LLCs to vote multiple times in the same election, in the same jurisdiction.
    - sobkas 3y ago
      > There is a ton of Supreme Court case law that disagrees with you.[0] And how much it helped roe v wade not being overturned? Case law is fine and dandy until there is political will to overturn it. Then it only matters what political opinion have majority there. And it always was some flavour of right(D or R).
      - comte7092 3y ago
        Row v wade had largely been eroded by the time it was overturned. It was obviously a very big deal politically, but the operative case law was Casey v planned parenthood, which allowed for a significant amount of restrictions. Casey paved the way for the mass whittling away of abortion rights in many states before roe was officially overturned. The roe precedent was not on nearly as firm of ground. Though your overall point is still obviously correct, at the end of the day the court is a political institution ruled over by 9 unelected individuals.

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]"

duxup 3y ago

> That all seems pretty reasonable for small resort towns. Maybe but I can imagine locals who live there full time having problems getting city see that a guy who lives there 3 weeks a year doesn’t care about.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> I can imagine locals who live there full time having problems getting city see that a guy who lives there 3 weeks a year doesn’t care about There is a balance of interests. That doesn’t mean anyone not somewhere all the time should get zero representation. This is part of finding that balance.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  > There is a balance of interests. Literally what? If this isn't the meaningless bullshit it sounds like, I will be stunned.
- msrenee 3y ago
  Just as a practical example, in my area, we've got all kinds of property owned by people who live halfway across the country. I've got a particular individual in mind who lives in New York and has never resided in this state. He owns about a 1/4 mile stretch of strip mall in my parent's city. The buildings are getting rough and the roads and parking lots look like a war zone. If a similar law was enacted here, he'd get to vote in local elections in spite of the fact that his only ties to the area are in real estate holdings. He has no interest in that city being a decent place to live and I can't imagine he'd hesitate to support legislation that would increase his short-term profits at the expense of the city's residents.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

comte7092 3y ago

That practice is pretty antithetical to modern Democratic values though. ie one person, one vote.

chx 3y ago
I really must note this ideal is already not practiced in the United States, in fact it never was. The Electoral College, the Senate, the Supreme Court ensures this. After Citizens United I wouldn't be surprised at all if eventually corporate federal vote happened.
- comte7092 3y ago
  There is a ton of Supreme Court case law that disagrees with you.[0] >in fact it never was. The Electoral College, the Senate, the Supreme Court ensures this. Note my use of the word modern. All of those (elected) institutions are ossified in place due to the herculean effort it would take to modify them. They are products of a time when that was very much not a settled value in the United States. [0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule Note that as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, such rules allow people who own multiple LLCs to vote multiple times in the same election, in the same jurisdiction.
  - sobkas 3y ago
    > There is a ton of Supreme Court case law that disagrees with you.[0] And how much it helped roe v wade not being overturned? Case law is fine and dandy until there is political will to overturn it. Then it only matters what political opinion have majority there. And it always was some flavour of right(D or R).
    - comte7092 3y ago
      Row v wade had largely been eroded by the time it was overturned. It was obviously a very big deal politically, but the operative case law was Casey v planned parenthood, which allowed for a significant amount of restrictions. Casey paved the way for the mass whittling away of abortion rights in many states before roe was officially overturned. The roe precedent was not on nearly as firm of ground. Though your overall point is still obviously correct, at the end of the day the court is a political institution ruled over by 9 unelected individuals.