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.
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.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Not American, but is that even constitutional?
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.
It doesn’t feel constitutional, but you can make any law as long as no one takes you to court.
With this SCOTUS constitutionality no longer matters.
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.