4 ms·
Read the opinion. > I appreciate that Plaintiff may disagree with Delaware’s policy of authorizing certain municipalities to allow voting on behalf of entity p
by nh23423fefe 5mo ago
Read the opinion.
> I appreciate that Plaintiff may disagree with Delaware’s policy of authorizing certain municipalities to allow voting on behalf of entity property owners. Visions of faceless large corporations or even HAL, 55 controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this policy violates the principle of one person/entity/one vote.
- pessimizer 5mo agoThe answer to the question asked is not here. Accusing somebody of seeing "visions" is not an answer, it is an evasion.
- josefritzishere 5mo agoIt fundamentally violates one person/entity/one vote. Corporations are not sentient. If you let them vote, a person gets to vote twice. There's no way around that conflict. I feel like this has to collapse on appeal or the nation is doomed.
- nh23423fefe 5mo ago> a person gets to vote twice. how do they do that?
- kjkjadksj 5mo agoWhoever dictates the company vote then votes for themselves.
- Refreeze5224 5mo agoThe owner votes as themselves, and again as the corporate entity.
- ceejayoz 5mo agoNo. Per the ruling: > Where a voter is entitled to vote by virtue of being both a resident and as an owner of real property, that voter shall be entitled to only one vote; where a voter is entitled to vote by ownership of two or more parcels of real property, that voter shall be entitled to only one vote. However, that seems to get messy with multi-owner LLCs where you might give 1% of each LLC to a bunch of your buddies and have them each vote as POA for theirs.
- pseudalopex 5mo ago1 person 1 vote does not mean in each city where they own property.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago"One person, one vote" is clearly a per-race thing, or I'd violate it by voting for President and Senator at the same time.
- pseudalopex 5mo agoThis did not refute what I said.
- ceejayoz 5mo agoYou said: > The owner votes as themselves, and again as the corporate entity. Per the opinion, which I quoted above, this is not the case. (I do think it gets instantly messy with multi-owner corporations, though.)
- pseudalopex 5mo agoRefreeze5224 said what you claimed I said. You quoted Fenwick's charter. Where a voter is entitled to vote [in Fenwick] by virtue of being both a resident [in Fenwick] and as an owner of real property [in Fenwick], that voter shall be entitled to only one vote [in Fenwick]; where a voter is entitled to vote [in Fenwick] by ownership of two or more parcels of real property [in Fenwick], that voter shall be entitled to only one vote [in Fenwick]. You dispute this meaning? Refreeze5224 did not say in Fenwick.