Seaford, a town of about 8,000 on the Nanticoke River, amended its charter in April to allow businesses — including LLCs, corporations, trusts or partnerships — the right to vote in local elections. The law would go into effect once both houses of Delaware's state legislature approve it.
The proposal has rekindled a debate over how much power corporations should have in local government, with fierce opposition from civic interest groups who say businesses already wield too much influence over politics.
Legislators have cast the change as a fix for low turnout in municipal elections and a way to attract business owners to the community.
"These are folks that have fully invested in their community with the money, with their time, with their sweat. We want them to have a voice if they choose to take it," Seaford mayor David Genshaw told local station WRDE. Genshaw cast the deciding vote in a split City Council decision on the charter amendment in April, according to The Lever.
Earlier this year, progressives in Delaware's legislature introduced a bill that would altogether ban corporate voting in local elections.
These are folks that have fully invested in their community with the money, with their time, with their sweat. We want them to have a voice if they choose to take it,"
It's a concern the article sort of addresses. But the bigger concern is that corporations are not people and allowing them to have the same rights as people is dangerous for society. Allowing them...
It's a concern the article sort of addresses. But the bigger concern is that corporations are not people and allowing them to have the same rights as people is dangerous for society. Allowing them to vote is a slippery slope that will edge out the power of the people in time.
I mean, on the one hand I sort of understand the reasoning, especially if the business owner lives in a different area that means they wouldn't be able to vote on things impacting their business....
I mean, on the one hand I sort of understand the reasoning, especially if the business owner lives in a different area that means they wouldn't be able to vote on things impacting their business.
On the other hand, just move to where you business is located and enjoy your equal representation.
It’s a lot cheaper to form a shell LLC in Delaware than it is to buy a vote. Depending on how this is written the business may not even need to do anything, and one person could theoretically own...
It’s a lot cheaper to form a shell LLC in Delaware than it is to buy a vote.
Depending on how this is written the business may not even need to do anything, and one person could theoretically own many “businesses”.
It basically is in all but name owned by them already. I thought I would at least get robot eyes in a dystopian future controlled by corporations, but nooooo we get this instead.
It basically is in all but name owned by them already.
I thought I would at least get robot eyes in a dystopian future controlled by corporations, but nooooo we get this instead.
Seems like the reasoning is that rich people deserves power, while poor people does not. It is essentially antidemocratic, actively trying to replace even representation with a hierachial power...
"These are folks that have fully invested in their community with the money, with their time, with their sweat. We want them to have a voice if they choose to take it," Seaford mayor David Genshaw told local station WRDE.
Seems like the reasoning is that rich people deserves power, while poor people does not. It is essentially antidemocratic, actively trying to replace even representation with a hierachial power structure. Ever since I watched Always a Bigger Fish, I had the unpleasant inkling that those gung-ho capitalist guys just don't like democracy much.
That was basically my thought. Any way you set it up would allow the rich to game the system somehow. Lets say I'm a bazillionare and they decide that to stop me from buying 1000 LLC's they'll say...
what is stopping a rich millionaire from spending $100k and filing 1,000 LLCs in the area and effectively gaining full control of local elections
That was basically my thought.
Any way you set it up would allow the rich to game the system somehow. Lets say I'm a bazillionare and they decide that to stop me from buying 1000 LLC's they'll say that they have to actually be businesses not empty shells, what's to stop me from setting up 1000 tiny web-stores OR what's to stop me from buying controlling interests in several small businesses.
So, business owners get two votes?
It's a concern the article sort of addresses. But the bigger concern is that corporations are not people and allowing them to have the same rights as people is dangerous for society. Allowing them to vote is a slippery slope that will edge out the power of the people in time.
I mean, on the one hand I sort of understand the reasoning, especially if the business owner lives in a different area that means they wouldn't be able to vote on things impacting their business.
On the other hand, just move to where you business is located and enjoy your equal representation.
If memory serves this is basically what the City of London does. "Guilds" get to vote on things and count for a large amount of the vote.
Maybe some sort of "you get one or the other but not both" rule should be appended too.
It’s a lot cheaper to form a shell LLC in Delaware than it is to buy a vote.
Depending on how this is written the business may not even need to do anything, and one person could theoretically own many “businesses”.
No business owners get as many votes as they want. What is to stop someone from registering 100 LLCs to swing elections?
Man this country is just going to hell in a handbasket isn't it. Why not just sell the whole place to corporations.
It basically is in all but name owned by them already.
I thought I would at least get robot eyes in a dystopian future controlled by corporations, but nooooo we get this instead.
Seems like the reasoning is that rich people deserves power, while poor people does not. It is essentially antidemocratic, actively trying to replace even representation with a hierachial power structure. Ever since I watched Always a Bigger Fish, I had the unpleasant inkling that those gung-ho capitalist guys just don't like democracy much.
That was basically my thought.
Any way you set it up would allow the rich to game the system somehow. Lets say I'm a bazillionare and they decide that to stop me from buying 1000 LLC's they'll say that they have to actually be businesses not empty shells, what's to stop me from setting up 1000 tiny web-stores OR what's to stop me from buying controlling interests in several small businesses.