Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 269 posts

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#51

Post by tiahura »

rayiner wrote: post #25

I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In this case, non-residents who own a house on the island can vote according to the charter. The charter just says that this doesn’t change because you move ownership of the house into a legal entity that some human then owns and controls. The actual grievance seem…

When I hear people grouse about the concept corporate rights, I always ask them why they hate New York Times _Co._ v. Sullivan.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#52

Post by trinsic2 »

rayiner wrote: post #25

I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In this case, non-residents who own a house on the island can vote according to the charter. The charter just says that this doesn’t change because you move ownership of the house into a legal entity that some human then owns and controls. The actual grievance seem…

The problem is corporations mostly don't have the same interests in communities as people and they are motivated by other concerns that can run counter to the good of society. So yea.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#53

Post by toast0 »

postflopclarity wrote: post #23
black6 wrote: post #17

If I own property in multiple municipalities/states, then I should be able to vote in all of them on local issues.

that's a different legal question than the one here.

This case is specifically about allowing voting for non-resident property owners when the ownership is held by a corporation rather than a natural person.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#54

Post by forgetfulness »

ceejayoz wrote: post #24
nh23423fefe wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you pretending this argument wasn't addressed in the opinion?

But it wasn't, really. > 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. > Any legal entity other than a natural person entitled to vote, must cast its vote by a duly executed and not…

Also what constitutes ownership here? Couldn't some Enterprising Individuals open 100 shell companies, pool together resources and form the Legalize Asbestos Consortium, the Consortium buys a plot of land and then each stakeholder of the Consortium counts as an owner of the plot of land?

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#56

Post by NDlurker »

ceejayoz wrote: post #11
cwmma wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you it's only corporations that own property in the town that get to vote. So that's probably whats preventing you.

Wonder how long it is before there's a vote to allow the sale of inch-square lots.

Exactly. Same thing as offices set up to register out of state businesses.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#57

Post by tialaramex »

yieldcrv wrote: post #3

> Visions of faceless large corporations or even HAL controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction The City of London and Hong Kong have half of the voting power held by corporations and City of London is older than any US state, and colony. And so are some of the guilds Universal suffrage at all, and exclusive to natural persons, is more science fiction than corporations voting

One of the interesting patterns for suffrage has been that it doesn't matter.

Before Great Reform the vast majority of British people can't vote, after it all the moderately wealthy men can now vote. So did that result in massive political change, reflecting the newly enfranchised people's preferences? Nope. Subsequent tinkering expanded suffrage slightly but again, the results were the same. Then last century they did several things in quick succession (often portrayed as "universal suffrage" but as we'll see that's just what people always call any expansion, the "universe" of one's imagination grows). First they gave all men (including poor men), and older women suffrage. This made no appreciable difference except that, having now entertained the idea that women should vote (it wasn't technically illegal before Great Reform it just didn't happen enough to matter) the women realised hey, maybe women should be politicians and that did cause some modest changes. Then they equalised voting age for men and women, so now a 21 year old can vote regardless of gender.

Later in that century the UK gave almost† all 18 year olds the vote too, and again the worry was maybe a 19 year old will vote differently? Nope. More or less the same results.

So, maybe giving corporations the vote changes nothing, but I'm less hopeful than I was for giving Sarah, an 18 year living with her parents on benefits the vote knowing that for some insane reason she's not actually much more likely to vote against a "Fuck Sarah, take her money away" policy than everybody else is because apparently all people are morons so giving more of them suffrage changed nothing. I think corporations are psychopaths not morons...

† Although most crooks in the UK aren't magically stopped from voting, they can't vote in prison and in practice it's very hard to vote from prison even if it would be legal for you because you're held there prior to a trial or whatever. So that's not ideal. It is controversial whether specific electoral interference crimes should result in withdrawal of suffrage, as is the practice today or whether that's just petty and ultimately futile.

[[ I still support universal suffrage, but because now it's everybody's fault. You're not going to get a good government, but now the terrible government is your fault too. ]]

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#58

Post by craftkiller »

rayiner wrote: post #25

I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In this case, non-residents who own a house on the island can vote according to the charter. The charter just says that this doesn’t change because you move ownership of the house into a legal entity that some human then owns and controls. The actual grievance seem…

> they won’t want rich people to vote.

I don't think anyone would object to a rich person casting a single vote and maybe putting a bumper sticker on their car or a sign in their yard. The issue people take with the rich and politics is the outsized influence they wield in elections. The whole "one person one vote" thing falls apart when the rich can throw millions at advertisements and millions at the "charities" run by the politicians they bought.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#59

Post by esikich »

rayiner wrote: post #25

I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In this case, non-residents who own a house on the island can vote according to the charter. The charter just says that this doesn’t change because you move ownership of the house into a legal entity that some human then owns and controls. The actual grievance seem…

Does a corporation need healthcare? Can a corporation be jailed? Does a corporation have a finite life in which they can pursue happiness? Does a corporation have offspring it's trying to raise? Does a corporation have hopes and dreams? Does a corporation wish to visit a park or visit with their neighbors? Are you for real?

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#60

Post by rayiner »

wat10000 wrote: post #50
rayiner wrote: post #25

I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In this case, non-residents who own a house on the island can vote according to the charter. The charter just says that this doesn’t change because you move ownership of the house into a legal entity that some human then owns and controls. The actual grievance seem…

If the corporation is just a proxy for the owners then why is this in court? Why aren't the humans just voting directly? It's well established that it's OK for humans to vote.

Because the municipal charter in question confers to vote on the property owner. Which might technically be a corporation.
Post reply on HN