A handful of other Delaware towns, including Fenwick Island, Henlopen Acres and Dagsboro, already allow corporations to vote
So what you're saying is that I can already spin up extra LLCs and get extra ballots?
The corporations themselves cannot vote. This law allows the owner of the corporation to vote even if they do not live within the city proper. No one can vote twice - whether you live in the city and own a corporation or own multiple corporations. And it's only for corporations that own property. While it's easy to imagine this backfiring, the steelman position is - you own a small business one town over, you have a significant role in the local economy, giving you one vote the same as any resident sounds pretty reasonable. Rich folk who own a house and live their 2 months out of the year are potentially eligible to vote as well, so it's potentially more justified that the owner of the local bakery gets to vote too. Could this end up being horribly abused? I don't know that there are enough safeguards against it. But this doesn't immediately scream the end of democracy to me.
But it definitely screams the death of a town when corporate find a way to game the system.
I guess my main concern would be, are these owners or part-time residents voting elsewhere also? Would give new meaning to "vote early, vote often" if so.
With this SCOTUS constitutionality no longer matters.
It doesn't feel constitutional, but you can make any law as long as no one takes you to court.
Not American, but wondering how easy it is for foreigners to control US corporations.
It's extremely easy, and I believe this bill also allows for them to vote by proxy, which exacerbates that concern. But on the other hand, they do need to own property, so it isn't a totally costless endevour.
Not American, but is that even constitutional?
From the article:
So what you're saying is that I can already spin up extra LLCs and get extra ballots?
The corporations themselves cannot vote. This law allows the owner of the corporation to vote even if they do not live within the city proper. No one can vote twice - whether you live in the city and own a corporation or own multiple corporations. And it's only for corporations that own property. While it's easy to imagine this backfiring, the steelman position is - you own a small business one town over, you have a significant role in the local economy, giving you one vote the same as any resident sounds pretty reasonable. Rich folk who own a house and live their 2 months out of the year are potentially eligible to vote as well, so it's potentially more justified that the owner of the local bakery gets to vote too. Could this end up being horribly abused? I don't know that there are enough safeguards against it. But this doesn't immediately scream the end of democracy to me.
But it definitely screams the death of a town when corporate find a way to game the system.
I guess my main concern would be, are these owners or part-time residents voting elsewhere also? Would give new meaning to "vote early, vote often" if so.
With this SCOTUS constitutionality no longer matters.
It doesn't feel constitutional, but you can make any law as long as no one takes you to court.
Not American, but wondering how easy it is for foreigners to control US corporations.
It's extremely easy, and I believe this bill also allows for them to vote by proxy, which exacerbates that concern. But on the other hand, they do need to own property, so it isn't a totally costless endevour.