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.
The answer to the question asked is not here. Accusing somebody of seeing "visions" is not an answer, it is an evasion.
It 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.
> a person gets to vote twice.
how do they do that?
Whoever dictates the company vote then votes for themselves.
The owner votes as themselves, and again as the corporate entity.
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.
1 person 1 vote does not mean in each city where they own property.
"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.
This did not refute what I said.
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.)
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.
The context is clearly "in Fenwick".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48295844
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
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.
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
The POA is to vote as a proxy for the entity. The entity gets one vote. Not one vote per shareholder.
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