3 ms·

The owner votes as themselves, and again as the corporate entity.

ceejayoz 4mo ago
No. 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 4mo ago
  1 person 1 vote does not mean in each city where they own property.
  - ceejayoz 4mo 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 4mo ago
      This did not refute what I said.
      - ceejayoz 4mo ago
        You 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 4mo ago
        Refreeze5224 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.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        The context is clearly "in Fenwick". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48295844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48295844
        pseudalopex 4mo ago
        The strongest plausible interpretation of josefritzishere and Refreeze5224 was the judge was wrong because voting in 2 places would violate 1 person 1 vote. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        But that's not true, either. My town has a village at its core; village residents vote in two places. Our school district doesn't perfectly match the town's borders, either, so some folks vote in two places there. One person gets one vote in a particular election.
        pseudalopex 4mo ago
        This is not what people mean when they say vote in 2 places commonly. And I said 2 cities before. 1 person 1 vote is an expression of equal representation.[1] Someone who votes in city 1 and city 2 and someone who votes in city 1 solely have unequal representation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man%2C_one_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man%2C_one_vote
- SoftTalker 4mo ago
  The POA is to vote as a proxy for the entity. The entity gets one vote. Not one vote per shareholder.
  - setr 4mo ago
    If you’re a shareholder in 5 companies, each owning 2 parcels of land, each with their own PoA, and you yourself hold land — then you have “influence” into 6 votes, though only direct ownership of 1 vote

No. 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 4mo ago
1 person 1 vote does not mean in each city where they own property.
- ceejayoz 4mo 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 4mo ago
    This did not refute what I said.
    - ceejayoz 4mo ago
      You 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 4mo ago
        Refreeze5224 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.
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        The context is clearly "in Fenwick". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48295844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48295844
        pseudalopex 4mo ago
        The strongest plausible interpretation of josefritzishere and Refreeze5224 was the judge was wrong because voting in 2 places would violate 1 person 1 vote. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        But that's not true, either. My town has a village at its core; village residents vote in two places. Our school district doesn't perfectly match the town's borders, either, so some folks vote in two places there. One person gets one vote in a particular election.
        pseudalopex 4mo ago
        This is not what people mean when they say vote in 2 places commonly. And I said 2 cities before. 1 person 1 vote is an expression of equal representation.[1] Someone who votes in city 1 and city 2 and someone who votes in city 1 solely have unequal representation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man%2C_one_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man%2C_one_vote
SoftTalker 4mo ago
The POA is to vote as a proxy for the entity. The entity gets one vote. Not one vote per shareholder.
- setr 4mo ago
  If you’re a shareholder in 5 companies, each owning 2 parcels of land, each with their own PoA, and you yourself hold land — then you have “influence” into 6 votes, though only direct ownership of 1 vote