6 ms·
Could it become a precedent for federal-wide votes?
by mr90210 3y ago
Could it become a precedent for federal-wide votes?
- ajdude 3y agoThis 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 agoDamn! Well, there's a good reason to never live in Delaware!
- klyrs 3y agoLocal referendum != federal election
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago"Vote early, vote often" isn't supposed to be a recommended best practice. What prevents me from opening up 10000 LLCs and solely deciding the outcome of an off cycle election? It really boggles the mind how ignorant Americans are of basic civics. Just the other day I saw a generally knowledgeable law YouTuber state that rights are "granted by the government" which can't be further from the truth in the US.
- kristopolous 3y agoA new definition for "property rights"
- redeeman 3y ago> which can't be further from the truth in the US. thats what the good document promises, not quite what plays out in real life
- batch12 3y ago> rights are "granted by the government" which can't be further from the truth in the US. Yeah, this is a disconcerting trend that I've observed too. Do you this think could be an issue that's always existed at the same levels and is now easier to observe due to the window of social media (and looks like a trend), or do you think it's something new?
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoIt’s a non-obvious concept. If you don’t have some knowledge of the history of law, civics and republics, it’s easy to think of the Bill of Rights as granting rights.
- boomboomsubban 3y agoEven with some knowledge of those things, it's hard to rationalize inherent rights with what we do to noncitizens. Everybody has these rights, but for some reason the Bill of Rights only protects the rights of Americans. Pretty easy to mistake that as the Bill of Rights granting rights.
- sangnoir 3y agoThis is very Cyberpunk, I can't wait for a Delaware city to allow LLCs to run for seats on the council or to become the mayor (several-dozen votes per controlling entity may help!) In my imagination, the first thing Mayor Blackrock 9754 LLC will do is approve a referendum to phase out residential zoning for new developments, next comes the requisite Japanese tech corps, holographic ads and perpetual night. I never imagined this would be set in Delaware - but it sort of tracks.
- civilitty 3y agoTurns out we're fine with turning our world into a dystopia as long as that dystopia has predictable chancery courts.
- Spivak 3y agoRemove the "corporation" part and it kinda gets reasonable again. Would you vote for a group of people to be your representative? I might.
- seanp2k2 3y agoWhat about if the group of people is investors who don't have the best interests of the population in mind, but instead, only profits?
- x3n0ph3n3 3y agoNot without a constitutional amendment.
- comte7092 3y agoYou might want to re read the constitution. The constitution leaves qualifications for voting up to the states. If Delaware allows corporations to in certain state elections, it would follow that they’d be able to vote for congressional seats as well. From article 1: >The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
- joshuamorton 3y agoThis would run into 14th amendment issues (and the "one person, one vote" doctrine) pretty quickly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders and it's similar cases. Specifically, the 14th amendment's equal protection clause is seen to apply to voting rights (of which apportionment is perhaps the most unclear, but literally giving individuals multiple votes, as opposed to different weights is sort of a beyond obvious violation).
- kristopolous 3y agoDo you honestly think the courts will decide against corporations? You'd be more likely to tune to your local classical station and hear techno. It'd be that out of character Go listen to the 150 or so episodes of the 5-4 podcast for lots of examples
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- x3n0ph3n3 3y ago> chosen every second Year by the People of the several States
- SllX 3y agoPolitically? Sure, but it’s not like the idea has never existed before. You can try anything politically, independent of whether it’s a good idea, bad idea, viable or unviable. Legally? No.
- screwturner68 3y agoI've been wondering about this for a while. Since we know corporations are people my friend and have all the rights or a person what should stop them from voting. I assume that if pressed a corporation that is 18 years old should be allowed to vote, there's nothing in the constitution prohibiting it. Knowing the current group of yokels in the SC I'm sure we'd see a 6-3 vote codifying the voting rights of a corporation.
- ddingus 3y agoCorporations are not people. They are constructs.
- dragonwriter 3y agoCorporations are legal persons, but they aren’t natural persons but instead vehicles for actions by natural persons. Granting them voting rights effectively is just granting additional voting rights for the people that control them in proportion of their control, making them effectively a form of selective electoral inequality (and, insofar as as there are government-imposed costs on having a corporation, a form of poll taxes.)
- ddingus 3y agoYes, I think I agree. However, the idea of a construct being deemed a person makes no sense given how we define what a person is. Further, having essentially broken that definition, we have opened the door for all sorts of crazy legal things to happen! Anything can be a person. Anything can be anything, taken to extremes. In addition to voting issues you mention, having the corporation as person means some of us have agency others do not due to how we operate companies. The owners have a shield for all sorts of otherwise expensive and risky behavior. Great as well as evil actions are possible, affordable and it is not necessary we allow these things. I see it as very harmful.
- zzzeek 3y agoParent commenter was very deftly referring to an infamous quote by Mitt Romney.