5 ms·
The strongest plausible interpretation of josefritzishere and Refreeze5224 was the judge was wrong because voting in 2 places would violate 1 person 1 vote. Ple
by pseudalopex 5mo 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 5mo agoBut 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 5mo agoThis 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