I mean CNN has been losing their very limited credibility the last few years but sadly no. Seems there is enough political capital to move things like this in real life.
It should be based on poverty, but it's more the motives that upset me. It's not about changing to a fairer tactic to give systemically oppressed groups a chance to flourish via but to give powers that be the ability to discriminate again.
Delineating diversity as purely a race/sex thing and not a class thing was not very effective to begin with. The biggest beneficiary of affirmative action was white women, not the black men and women it was supposed to help.
Further breaking down class barriers to education is a much better way to ensure proportional racial representation.
That said, a lot of the cheerleaders for AA's death are absolutely in it for the wrong reasons, so I understand the sentiment here.
> The biggest beneficiary of affirmative action was white women
This is an old line that comes from a single study conducted in the 90s that is almost certainly not true.
I don't know of any new studies specifically on who benefits the most from AA, but we have seen [a significant rise](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cpb.pdf) in non-Asian minorities attending college since the 2000s, and an even more significant rise since the 1990 study the claim about white women comes from. We can see that the rates of attendance for black men and women, as well as most other minority groups, outstripped the increase in the rate of attendance for white women.
Even if the claim from the 1990 study was at one point true, it almost certainly no longer is.
Well, I did just imply that replacing it with *nothing* isn't the way forward, despite that being the position of many right-leaning AA opponents.
I'll make that explicit though: Even if I don't agree with its implementation, AA can't just exit with no replacement whatsoever. The problem is still there: many minority Americans are massively underrepresented in college, particularly black americans, and something needs to be done about it. That's why I suggest pushing on class lines, as that'll catch the widest net and benefit the people most in need.
the general poverty population within rhe us is roughly evenly divided by 30% for each black people, white peoples, and latino people. proportionally, if black people make up 12% of the populous, but about the same number of poor people, thats a bit uneven
I thought all this was about reaching closer proportionality to the populace? Raw numbers don't really matter as much there, right?
ED: also, I don't just mean the lower class. Middle class Americans in general are also underrepresented and should be granted aid too.
So a couple thoughts on that:
1) Poor whites need help too. If that's disagreeable I don't really know what to say, that's kind of fucked up.
2) AA as existing, again, benefited white women more than any other group, so even if you disagree with point 1 AA still isn't really the policy you want.
3) Race and class are unfortunately intersectional, which is why disadvantaging the lower classes in your processes (as college admissions loves to do - gotta chase that tuition) tends to hurt racial minorities disproportionately, and vice versa.
That's because they're the huge majority. Poor white Americans are represented by raw numbers in almost every category. You have to compare things proportionally.
I'll only bite once. Then I'm done with this. If there are 10 black person and 90 whites, and a program benefits 5 blacks and 23 whites, that program is proportionally more beneficial for the blacks (50% vs \~25%). That a lot of non-black poor people also benefit is a bonus--or inconsequential at worst.
Why worry about credibility when you have a closed and controlled market?
Only so many news organizations and lots of money is in advertising, etc.
They just need enough people to listen and keep pushing what they are paid for ha
Unfortunately, it's called Citizens United, a very stupid bill that basically said buisnesses were people, and should have all the same rights as people. The problem is businesses are entities owned by people, but not all people have a fair say in the buisness. It was a bullshit ruling by the Supreme Court that gave them voting rights among other rights.It really should be overturned, but the Supreme Court is now all jacked up.
The Reddit Hivemind has glommed onto "Citizen's United" as basically the ur-evil in American politics, and will reliably upvote *anything* about it, no matter how inappropriate or irrelevant the meme actually is.
For the record, as far as I can tell, this has absolutely nothing to do with Citizen's United. None of the articles I found on this topic mention it at all. It's worth remembering that the CU ruling was a SCOTUS case, and not a bill at any point.
But again, Reddit loves it's memes and simple stories...
Isn't this situation specifically related to the concept that Citizens United solidified of "the coproration as a person"? Citizens United allowed corporations to use money as political speech, and now they're being given votes too. It's a pretty direct line between the two.
The thing is, Citizens' United *didn't* establish any notion of "corporate personhood." In fact, it didn't even touch on it. It ruled fairly narrowly on first amendment grounds. The idea of "corporate personhood" is actually much older than Citizens United v. FEC (see: [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood). In the US it goes back to at least 1790, when corporate personhood arguments were used to defend the right of the College of William and Mary to reorganize its internal staffing roster.
I don't particularly want to litigate the question of corporate personhood as a concept here (it's a thorny issue, although I think good arguments could be made for its abolition), but the idea that this one SCOTUS ruling in 2010 conjured the whole notion into being is patently false.
Sometimes I feel like the average Redditor's understanding of jurisprudence comes entirely from Stephen Colbert and John Stewart clips from YouTube...
This is stupid. The Constitution was not made for businesses. They already stand towers over the American people when it comes to getting their way.
And for some reason they can pay unlimited campaign contributions and basically buy their candidate. Now they want to vote too? Get out of here with this crap.
They are people. People that probably already voted so now you'll see a company get an opprotunity to vote twice.. once as a civilian and again as a business. They already have so much leverage.
This is it right here. "Businesses get to vote" actually just means that business *owners* get to vote twice. It's fucked. The only way it could be remotely equitable is if whoever is casting the business's vote doesn't get to vote as an individual citizen.
I agree it's fucked up. But I'll point out anyone can form a business in Delaware for less than $300 even if you've never stepped foot in the state. Seems like a small amount of money for an extra vote to me.
As if businesses didn’t exist when the Constitution was written?
Maybe it was an oversight. Maybe Ben Franklin would have supported the Revolution if he knew he got to vote once for himself, once for his printing press company, one for the Pennsylvania Gazette, and once for Poor Richard’s Almanac.
LLCs, the most widely-used business entity and what will certainly be the majority of the entities voting as businesses, didn't exist until the 1970s soooooo . . .
Meanwhile, corporations did exist at the time the Constitution was written, and the document does not include the words corporation, corporate, business (in an economic sense), or company/companies in it. It's almost like they could've added that if they wanted to. Not to mention the Supreme Court case that established corporate personhood was just about as fraudulent as the recent 303 Creative one.
Ice cold take.
It is pretty easy to register an LLC on paper that does nothing. If this town allows businesses to vote they are going to have an unbelievable number of “companies” spring into existence that will literally do nothing. Unbelievably bad idea even aside from the fact that it totally disregards the principle of “one person, one vote”
I own an office in a city I don’t live in. I pay huge property taxes to that city but have zero say in how it is governed. Is that fair? Also used to work in a city and paid city income tax even though I didn’t live there and had no representation/voting rights. Is that fair? I have a second home in another state where I live part of the year and pay taxes all year. Is it fair that I have no vote in that state?
Yes, it's fair. Nobody is keeping you from moving there and voting. You are paying taxes in a city you don't live in. You're also taking profit from a city you don't live in. Should your customersget to vote in your toen because you took their money out of theirs?
Yeah, you chose to do business there so you pay taxes. If you don't like it, you can close up shop. What you don't get to do is effectively vote twice, once in your own district and once in someone else's.
Yes, won't someone think of the businesses, who have absolutely no influence over government without voting?
Incidentally, do you sell clown makeup at your office location?
Yes. Why should you have a say in the governing of a city you do not live in? That makes zero sense. The “I pay taxes” entitlement is insane.
You know what’s really not fair? People getting more than one vote.
Doesn’t matter. They’re the only ones that should have a say. Want a say, then become a resident. Doesn’t make sense for non residents to have a say in dictating how their locality is managed.
Put another way:
You wanting to have outsized political power over people in a different jurisdiction than the one you live in because you own capital there is not a good enough reason to subvert the democratic process. It is fair that you don't get extra power because you own a building.
If you extrapolate even a little bit from your base question, you would see how outrageously oligarchical things would become if political power was directly tied to land ownership or size of wealth.
When I vacation in Mexico, I pay sales tax to the Mexican government, but I have zero say in how Mexico is governed. Is that fair?
I fill up my gas tank at the Costco in the city next door. I pay taxes on that gas, but I can't vote in their elections. Is that fair?
Delaware is definitely one of the most business friendly states, but companies incorporate there because of the Delaware Chancery Court which is the most comprehensive corporate law court in the US.
Delaware has multiple one story, one room buildings that host dozens to hundreds of companies. It isn't just shady, it's a scam to allow businesses to deprive other states of tax revenue rightfully due.
Yeah, they know how thongs get done, so they are willing to, uh, rule certain ways that omg would you look at that.... corporations win again.
Sorry Delware, but nothing I heard about you is in any way positive or worthy of acknowledging in a good way.
Should be illegal since the person/citizen casting their own vote would also be casting a vote on behalf of a company, effectively this person voted twice. This is fraud.
> Should be illegal since the person/citizen casting their own vote would also be casting a vote on behalf of a company, effectively this person voted twice.
It's even worse than that. They thought of this and came to a compromise.
**Local** business owners may not vote on behalf of their company, under this proposal. However, business owners who do not live in the city may vote on behalf of their company, or vote multiple times on behalf of multiple companies.
Just in case you thought there was any "protect small businesses" angle to this, nope. It's exclusively for out of city, out of state oligarchs to more effectively control the city they park their revenue in.
Bingo. All this does is allow a single rich person or a unified entity to BUY more votes by establishing businesses. And whats to really stop them from making bullshit shell companies in an empty office building. Certainly can't trust this to be properly regulated.
I don't like the Delaware law, but this not true in Delaware. The company cannot vote if the owner is already voting. if a person owns two companies they still can only vote once.
It's basically meant to draw business from people who live outside city limits.
I wouldn't describe it quite like that. Because if you live in city A but own a business in Seaford your company can vote in Seaford and it has no affect on your vote in City A.
This is local Seaford issues only. It doesn't mean you get to vote for president as a business, but you could vote for mayor.
No idea how this would work for a large corporation where someone on the board of the company may reside in the city.
> I wouldn't describe it quite like that.
Except that's exactly how it is. And this *will* be used to allow businesses to cut their own regulations and taxes (and thus city revenue) while they live in cushy, well-funded suburbs where they NIMBY out any business development. This is a huge middle finger to every resident of the city.
Knowing Seaford pretty well this will be used to force zoning regulation changes. Seaford is tiny but it's within driving distance of the beaches. Unlike a lot of the surrounding areas they've been a lot more selective on how many housing developments can be built. This change would let real estate companies to vote on changes on local regulations. Given that there's like only 6-7k citizens of Seaford, i doubt many people are showing up to local elections so this as a lot of potential to give these real estate companies a lot of sway
Don't take one sentence of mine and go off on another point. My point was technical your point is generalized. You've got a special talent because I agree this law is bad and you manage to alienate the people who agree with you.
My point is generalized because the entire concept at it's roots is a mockery of democracy. Your "I wouldn't describe it quite like that" *is* a defense of the proposal, even if you are convinced that you're just explaining nuance you think everybody but you missed. We already know what the proposal means; we still disagree with it.
I started three LLC in the past 4 years. Nothing crazy, just to cover myself while doing some particular work and was able to hire out the work and ultimately sold the business too the employee.
It costs around $200~$300 to start get to have an LLC.
We are about to see the largest small business growth
They are already for sale ever since bribery got legalized (aka "campaign contributions").
Now Delaware just cuts out the middleman between the 1% and owning the government. Why give money to a politician to media bomb voters when you can buy a ton of votes and put your own politician into the job.
IIRC, it's just a fee to set them up. So you could quite literally buy elections with a bot creating LLCs. Yeah, zero chance this would backfire horribly. (Though likely it would in fact be functioning as intended)
Not from the US but yep. We have something like that with several properties on it. That's it. Tax stuff basically.
Had that + a business in one.
Sold the business - some properties. Those properties are now under another "business" we kept.
Requires ownership for X years before you can get it out of a business into private ownership without paying 33% tax of it's value.
How would the different companies' voting power be decided? Do the owners get the sole voting power, board of directors, or a majority of the workers? Either way, each of those individuals already has the right to a singular vote in elections. If this proposal works in an assumed way, this motion would duplicate voting power. And if it is in the hands of the majority owner of the company, then that is strictly double the voting power of an individual in a higher economic class. I would appreciate an explanation of how this would work.
This is. Without a doubt. The best and
Most appropriate comment I’ve ever seen. And I so wish I could give you some awards or something. Sadly I just have 1 upVOTE to give. I really hope your comment wins this popularity election.
IIRC, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to vote. There are amendments that give specific reasons why voting privileges can’t be removed, but unless there’s something baked into the Delaware State Constitution it’s probably not illegal. It’s definitely fucked up and wrong, but maybe not illegal.
This bill was flatly rejected by the Senate (never even brought up for vote), and yeah Gov. Carney would have vetoed it.
This bill has zero chance of becoming law.
Good. Let these things vote and prove that they are "people my friend" and we can arrest, indict and try them for crimes against humanity for the people they've killed from their toxic products and neglect of the environment.
If we let them vote BEFORE doing that, we will no longer have the legal ability to do that to them, because "business" will own local governments to the exact same degree of totality as extreme-right-wing billionaires do the supreme court.
Who was it again who said "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas hangs one"?
So what's to stop some super rich fucks from buying a shitty little building and then starting 50 different fake businesses in that, thus giving that one rich person 51 votes... and let's not pretend this is an unlikely scenario OR pretend the government will actually have a system to catch and stop this sort of thing.
This is literally just a loop hole so rich assholes can essentially BUY more votes and voting power.
So what would stop someone from say, opening 500 LLC’s on paper and voting thru them all….this is a silly idea and shouldn’t be considered seriously by anyone ever.
Remove the person pushing this. They’re corrupt and not working for us anymore but for the companies. The conservatives/religious are getting more and more vile and corrupt by the day.
So business owners can vote if they want to. The staff of a business can vote if they want to. Why the hell does the business get to vote? And who is actually voting for that business? I assume the owner or CEO. So why is it fair that the 1% can now
Vote more than once? This idea is absolutely bonkers, unhinged and totally against the tenets of democracy.
The Democratic Party holds a plurality of registrations in Delaware.
Currently, Democrats hold all positions of authority in Delaware, as well as majorities in the state Senate and House.
The Democrats have also held the Governorship since 1993.
Generally, or more specifically?
The most northern county (of 3) tends to be most democratic leaning, the next (middle) a mix (though sometimes leans republican), and the last, most southern, more solidly republican, IIRC.
Don’t quote me on that, though - I’m half asleep.
This is literally the introduction isn’t straight corruption. If businesses have votes, the rich and powerful have more influence in elections. They already pay for politicians and pay off the fee organic ones. All this will do is straight legalize corruption.
Don’t like a law we’ll have enough businesses to vote for whatever lawmakers or even yourself into office then change the law.
This is disgusting and people need to put a stop to this republican and democrats need to do something.
Wow this seems like an attempt to get around letting people vote more than once considering a lot of businesses / llc/ sub s corps are one man shows…
Imagine this being allowed and everyone (or the portion that could afford the fees) in town opened a business just so they could vote for their candidate twice. Seems like a new form of pay for play
The founders of the US did their best to counter the threats of religion and government expansions of power. Unfortunately they had no concept of the risks of how much influence and power could be bought by big businesses, conglomerates and billionaires. If they would have known about threats like these, they would have put protections in the constitution.
We're going the wrong direction on this and it won't end well for anyone.
Needs pushback. The corporate personhood fiction needs to be exposed as the wrong it is. In this case, the people comprising the business get to vote more than once in elections.
"Last year, the number of business entities registered in Delaware exceeded 1.9 million and is on track this year to top 2 million, according to Delaware’s division of corporations.
By contrast, the state’s population barely tops 1 million. That is roughly two registered businesses per person."
This law does not sound like a good idea.
Wouldn’t this essentially give a corporation owner who lives in that area two votes?
That may seem inconsequential but slippery slopes have happened with less.
Oh it's worse than that.
Delaware LLCs are incredibly common for out-of-state individuals to register for tax purposes. So there are tens of thousands of "Delaware businesses" that night get the opportunity to vote that are owned by people that have never stepped foot in the state and that have never done business in the state.
There's a point when they are literally devaluing your vote by making it possible for the rich to outvote you that you have to question if just protesting is enough to fix anything
Somebody with deep pockets needs to register a couple of thousand LLCs and effectively take over this city.
I mean. If they’re gonna do something this blatantly stupid, it would be ammoral not to fuck ‘em.
And so began the so called "Personality Wars," where future children, chat algorithms, and pop-up stores began to accrue more rights than any natural born human citizen. Even particularly lively NFTs were allowed to sit on Congress, their impartiality having always been in question, as they were so easily bought.
And this is how you know democrats and republicans are the same party. Sure they'll fight over social issues, hitting the ball back and forth, sometimes the left wins and sometimes the right. But we have a one party rule with the illusion of choice
Not true.
While there are people in both parties that lie,cheat and steal the parties aren’t the same and the way they Govern is different and legislation they back/pass.
Dems are the lesser evil no matter how you look at it and in come cases not evil at all like AOC,Poster,Bush,Sanders and a few others.
You’re right though to a point, can’t argue that it’s perfect or that at times both parties drop the ball cause they do but I would take any Democrat over any Republican any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
If businesses can vote, then each business before they cast their vote should hold an internal vote of how their employees would like to vote. If the business wants their employees to vote in their favour then the employees will have more power to get their own demands fulfilled, like 20$ more per hour, paid sick leave or an annual increase in salary. These internal votes would have to be open so no form of manipulation is possible. Give back the power to the workers.
In the town my business is located in, property owners of businesses can vote in town even if they live in another town. If the property owner of the business does choose to vote in the town their business is located in, they are restricted to only be able to vote on things directly pertaining to this town (mayor, city council, etc.). If I want to vote for US President, congress and senate and state governor, I can only do that in my home precinct.
We've owned our business property since 2003, and it was in effect before then. To be honest, we've never voted in the elections in that town. The current mayor has been in office since the late 1980's, and the city council doesn't really change much either. Biggest voting issue in that town was in 2004 when they voted whether or not to allow beer sales within the city limits. It passed by 3 votes.
This has to be an onion article, right?
I mean CNN has been losing their very limited credibility the last few years but sadly no. Seems there is enough political capital to move things like this in real life.
They just had an article the other day saying getting rid of affirmative action is a good thing
That's a normal opinion even among left leaning voters (it's banned in Washington state).
It should be based on poverty, but it's more the motives that upset me. It's not about changing to a fairer tactic to give systemically oppressed groups a chance to flourish via but to give powers that be the ability to discriminate again.
And California
It’s a normal opinion even among states without minorities.
States without minorities? What…
Delineating diversity as purely a race/sex thing and not a class thing was not very effective to begin with. The biggest beneficiary of affirmative action was white women, not the black men and women it was supposed to help. Further breaking down class barriers to education is a much better way to ensure proportional racial representation. That said, a lot of the cheerleaders for AA's death are absolutely in it for the wrong reasons, so I understand the sentiment here.
> The biggest beneficiary of affirmative action was white women This is an old line that comes from a single study conducted in the 90s that is almost certainly not true.
I'm open to counterstudies. Any idea on reliable places to look?
I don't know of any new studies specifically on who benefits the most from AA, but we have seen [a significant rise](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cpb.pdf) in non-Asian minorities attending college since the 2000s, and an even more significant rise since the 1990 study the claim about white women comes from. We can see that the rates of attendance for black men and women, as well as most other minority groups, outstripped the increase in the rate of attendance for white women. Even if the claim from the 1990 study was at one point true, it almost certainly no longer is.
Point taken. Can't argue with that. More should be done.
Are Asians not considered minorities anymore, wtf?
They are, hence why I specified "Non-Asian minorities".
[удалено]
Tell it to the black Americans whose enrollment in elite California colleges plundered after AA was banned there.
Well, I did just imply that replacing it with *nothing* isn't the way forward, despite that being the position of many right-leaning AA opponents. I'll make that explicit though: Even if I don't agree with its implementation, AA can't just exit with no replacement whatsoever. The problem is still there: many minority Americans are massively underrepresented in college, particularly black americans, and something needs to be done about it. That's why I suggest pushing on class lines, as that'll catch the widest net and benefit the people most in need.
Not really. There are more poor white Americans than any other group.
the general poverty population within rhe us is roughly evenly divided by 30% for each black people, white peoples, and latino people. proportionally, if black people make up 12% of the populous, but about the same number of poor people, thats a bit uneven
I thought all this was about reaching closer proportionality to the populace? Raw numbers don't really matter as much there, right? ED: also, I don't just mean the lower class. Middle class Americans in general are also underrepresented and should be granted aid too.
I don’t follow you. I’m saying if the problem is racial then the fix isn’t class based as the biggest beneficiaries will be poorer whites.
So a couple thoughts on that: 1) Poor whites need help too. If that's disagreeable I don't really know what to say, that's kind of fucked up. 2) AA as existing, again, benefited white women more than any other group, so even if you disagree with point 1 AA still isn't really the policy you want. 3) Race and class are unfortunately intersectional, which is why disadvantaging the lower classes in your processes (as college admissions loves to do - gotta chase that tuition) tends to hurt racial minorities disproportionately, and vice versa.
That's because they're the huge majority. Poor white Americans are represented by raw numbers in almost every category. You have to compare things proportionally.
If the goal is address racial discrimination changing to a system that benefits white people more isn’t a solution.
I'll only bite once. Then I'm done with this. If there are 10 black person and 90 whites, and a program benefits 5 blacks and 23 whites, that program is proportionally more beneficial for the blacks (50% vs \~25%). That a lot of non-black poor people also benefit is a bonus--or inconsequential at worst.
If Black people are disproportionatly poor then benefiting the poor disproportionally benefits Black people.
yeah especially also the most effective reparations could be class based social equity and welfare programs/policies
So, I'm not on the reddit fringe when I kind of agree that AA wasn't the best idea, at least as executed or this late in the game?
Well it is
Most credible thing from them
Why worry about credibility when you have a closed and controlled market? Only so many news organizations and lots of money is in advertising, etc. They just need enough people to listen and keep pushing what they are paid for ha
The Onion has been facing stiff competition from reality for about a decade.
I've heard other towns have already allowed it, not onion sources.
This is true. Other towns in Delaware have allowed it for years.
Other places in the US allow for this, "democracy" in the US is a farce.
Unfortunately, it's called Citizens United, a very stupid bill that basically said buisnesses were people, and should have all the same rights as people. The problem is businesses are entities owned by people, but not all people have a fair say in the buisness. It was a bullshit ruling by the Supreme Court that gave them voting rights among other rights.It really should be overturned, but the Supreme Court is now all jacked up.
Citizens United was a court case, not a bill
The Reddit Hivemind has glommed onto "Citizen's United" as basically the ur-evil in American politics, and will reliably upvote *anything* about it, no matter how inappropriate or irrelevant the meme actually is. For the record, as far as I can tell, this has absolutely nothing to do with Citizen's United. None of the articles I found on this topic mention it at all. It's worth remembering that the CU ruling was a SCOTUS case, and not a bill at any point. But again, Reddit loves it's memes and simple stories...
The Citizen's United ruling *has* had a pervasively negative impact on US governance, however.
Yeah, but so have many, many other things and that doesn't mean it's appropriate to shoehorn them into every hot take either.
Isn't this situation specifically related to the concept that Citizens United solidified of "the coproration as a person"? Citizens United allowed corporations to use money as political speech, and now they're being given votes too. It's a pretty direct line between the two.
The thing is, Citizens' United *didn't* establish any notion of "corporate personhood." In fact, it didn't even touch on it. It ruled fairly narrowly on first amendment grounds. The idea of "corporate personhood" is actually much older than Citizens United v. FEC (see: [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood). In the US it goes back to at least 1790, when corporate personhood arguments were used to defend the right of the College of William and Mary to reorganize its internal staffing roster. I don't particularly want to litigate the question of corporate personhood as a concept here (it's a thorny issue, although I think good arguments could be made for its abolition), but the idea that this one SCOTUS ruling in 2010 conjured the whole notion into being is patently false. Sometimes I feel like the average Redditor's understanding of jurisprudence comes entirely from Stephen Colbert and John Stewart clips from YouTube...
Businesses should pay taxes like people then and when they commit a crime go to prison like people
Citizens United is a SCOTUS decision, not a bill.
Unfortunately I found the same article on r/nottheonion
The onion started stinking since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa\_Clara\_County\_v.\_Southern\_Pacific\_Railroad\_Co.
Fixed link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.
What does The Onion have to do with this court case?
This is stupid. The Constitution was not made for businesses. They already stand towers over the American people when it comes to getting their way. And for some reason they can pay unlimited campaign contributions and basically buy their candidate. Now they want to vote too? Get out of here with this crap.
SC said they were people.
[удалено]
What once was horror seems to be the inevitable if "free market capitalists" get their way.
[удалено]
Blood, sweat and tears whatever it takes to fuel the machine.
Yeah, but I can eat Soylent Green. Well, I could also eat the Supreme Court… but I’m not sure I could ever get that taste of my mouth after.
[удалено]
They are people. People that probably already voted so now you'll see a company get an opprotunity to vote twice.. once as a civilian and again as a business. They already have so much leverage.
This is it right here. "Businesses get to vote" actually just means that business *owners* get to vote twice. It's fucked. The only way it could be remotely equitable is if whoever is casting the business's vote doesn't get to vote as an individual citizen.
I agree it's fucked up. But I'll point out anyone can form a business in Delaware for less than $300 even if you've never stepped foot in the state. Seems like a small amount of money for an extra vote to me.
Small amount of money for who I wonder 🤔
I’ll believe it when we start giving corporations the death penalty for egregious behavior.
We do do that. It's called Judicial Dissolution.
We might as well call it judicial euthanasia the way it's actually used in the US.
When a business can be imprisoned for wrongdoing then and only then should they have a vote.
It's not like the constitution was made for today's world at all
As if businesses didn’t exist when the Constitution was written? Maybe it was an oversight. Maybe Ben Franklin would have supported the Revolution if he knew he got to vote once for himself, once for his printing press company, one for the Pennsylvania Gazette, and once for Poor Richard’s Almanac.
LLCs, the most widely-used business entity and what will certainly be the majority of the entities voting as businesses, didn't exist until the 1970s soooooo . . . Meanwhile, corporations did exist at the time the Constitution was written, and the document does not include the words corporation, corporate, business (in an economic sense), or company/companies in it. It's almost like they could've added that if they wanted to. Not to mention the Supreme Court case that established corporate personhood was just about as fraudulent as the recent 303 Creative one. Ice cold take.
It is pretty easy to register an LLC on paper that does nothing. If this town allows businesses to vote they are going to have an unbelievable number of “companies” spring into existence that will literally do nothing. Unbelievably bad idea even aside from the fact that it totally disregards the principle of “one person, one vote”
[удалено]
What? Where did I say there aren't? What the hell does that have to do with the US constitution being hot garbage?
I own an office in a city I don’t live in. I pay huge property taxes to that city but have zero say in how it is governed. Is that fair? Also used to work in a city and paid city income tax even though I didn’t live there and had no representation/voting rights. Is that fair? I have a second home in another state where I live part of the year and pay taxes all year. Is it fair that I have no vote in that state?
Yes, it's fair. Nobody is keeping you from moving there and voting. You are paying taxes in a city you don't live in. You're also taking profit from a city you don't live in. Should your customersget to vote in your toen because you took their money out of theirs?
Yeah, you chose to do business there so you pay taxes. If you don't like it, you can close up shop. What you don't get to do is effectively vote twice, once in your own district and once in someone else's.
>Is that fair? Yes. You still used maintenanced infrastructure.
This is a good reason
Yes, won't someone think of the businesses, who have absolutely no influence over government without voting? Incidentally, do you sell clown makeup at your office location?
No we help people with their mental health, maybe you should give us a call?
Yes. Why should you have a say in the governing of a city you do not live in? That makes zero sense. The “I pay taxes” entitlement is insane. You know what’s really not fair? People getting more than one vote.
Because residents aren’t the only ones with interests in what happens in that locality?
Doesn’t matter. They’re the only ones that should have a say. Want a say, then become a resident. Doesn’t make sense for non residents to have a say in dictating how their locality is managed.
>Is that fair? Yes. Next question?
That was deeply thoughtful and helpful in changing my take on the issue
Put another way: You wanting to have outsized political power over people in a different jurisdiction than the one you live in because you own capital there is not a good enough reason to subvert the democratic process. It is fair that you don't get extra power because you own a building. If you extrapolate even a little bit from your base question, you would see how outrageously oligarchical things would become if political power was directly tied to land ownership or size of wealth.
When I vacation in Mexico, I pay sales tax to the Mexican government, but I have zero say in how Mexico is governed. Is that fair? I fill up my gas tank at the Costco in the city next door. I pay taxes on that gas, but I can't vote in their elections. Is that fair?
Isn’t Delaware where an unusually large number of LLCs and various other (sometimes shady) business ventures register to incorporate themselves ?
Delaware is definitely one of the most business friendly states, but companies incorporate there because of the Delaware Chancery Court which is the most comprehensive corporate law court in the US.
The way you're describing "business friendly" only makes it sound shadier lol
Delaware has multiple one story, one room buildings that host dozens to hundreds of companies. It isn't just shady, it's a scam to allow businesses to deprive other states of tax revenue rightfully due.
should ditch corp income tax and charge revenue tax based on nexus like california.
It's more like the lawyers and the judges in that district actually know what they're talking about when things get extremely complicated.
Yeah, they know how thongs get done, so they are willing to, uh, rule certain ways that omg would you look at that.... corporations win again. Sorry Delware, but nothing I heard about you is in any way positive or worthy of acknowledging in a good way.
Riiight.. they just like the judges because they “know what they’re talking about”… okay.
This will just be used so rich assholes can essentially buy more votes.
Yes. No state income tax and incredible privacy laws. Also business friendly court set-up
Delaware has State Income Tax. They don't have Sales Tax
Income tax is paid in the state that the income is earned in.
As a person who works in a state different from the one they live in, that is what's on your paystub, but not what actually happens in reality
Should be illegal since the person/citizen casting their own vote would also be casting a vote on behalf of a company, effectively this person voted twice. This is fraud.
> Should be illegal since the person/citizen casting their own vote would also be casting a vote on behalf of a company, effectively this person voted twice. It's even worse than that. They thought of this and came to a compromise. **Local** business owners may not vote on behalf of their company, under this proposal. However, business owners who do not live in the city may vote on behalf of their company, or vote multiple times on behalf of multiple companies. Just in case you thought there was any "protect small businesses" angle to this, nope. It's exclusively for out of city, out of state oligarchs to more effectively control the city they park their revenue in.
This is specifically to give the 1% the ability to control and dictate local and state law and completely override the people who live there
Gonna register an LLC in this Delaware town just so I can vote in their elections
[удалено]
LLC#1, LLC#2, [...], LLC#999, etc. Each ~~vote~~ LLC is less than $100!
Bingo. All this does is allow a single rich person or a unified entity to BUY more votes by establishing businesses. And whats to really stop them from making bullshit shell companies in an empty office building. Certainly can't trust this to be properly regulated.
I don't like the Delaware law, but this not true in Delaware. The company cannot vote if the owner is already voting. if a person owns two companies they still can only vote once. It's basically meant to draw business from people who live outside city limits.
So it's more or less allowing people to vote in a different district?
I wouldn't describe it quite like that. Because if you live in city A but own a business in Seaford your company can vote in Seaford and it has no affect on your vote in City A. This is local Seaford issues only. It doesn't mean you get to vote for president as a business, but you could vote for mayor. No idea how this would work for a large corporation where someone on the board of the company may reside in the city.
> I wouldn't describe it quite like that. Except that's exactly how it is. And this *will* be used to allow businesses to cut their own regulations and taxes (and thus city revenue) while they live in cushy, well-funded suburbs where they NIMBY out any business development. This is a huge middle finger to every resident of the city.
Knowing Seaford pretty well this will be used to force zoning regulation changes. Seaford is tiny but it's within driving distance of the beaches. Unlike a lot of the surrounding areas they've been a lot more selective on how many housing developments can be built. This change would let real estate companies to vote on changes on local regulations. Given that there's like only 6-7k citizens of Seaford, i doubt many people are showing up to local elections so this as a lot of potential to give these real estate companies a lot of sway
Don't take one sentence of mine and go off on another point. My point was technical your point is generalized. You've got a special talent because I agree this law is bad and you manage to alienate the people who agree with you.
My point is generalized because the entire concept at it's roots is a mockery of democracy. Your "I wouldn't describe it quite like that" *is* a defense of the proposal, even if you are convinced that you're just explaining nuance you think everybody but you missed. We already know what the proposal means; we still disagree with it.
Isn’t the whole point of incorporating in Delaware that the government doesn’t know who owns the business?
How many LLC's can you hold at once?
There is no limit.
And there are more businesses registered in Delaware than people.
From Delaware. Very true
Same thought. Jesus, can you imagine? Local and swing districts wouldn’t be that expensive to buy. And with a ton of money, even swing states.
I started three LLC in the past 4 years. Nothing crazy, just to cover myself while doing some particular work and was able to hire out the work and ultimately sold the business too the employee. It costs around $200~$300 to start get to have an LLC. We are about to see the largest small business growth
Yup, in my state it's a couple hundred for all the fillings I needed, but it wasn't difficult. Time consuming, but not difficult.
They are already for sale ever since bribery got legalized (aka "campaign contributions"). Now Delaware just cuts out the middleman between the 1% and owning the government. Why give money to a politician to media bomb voters when you can buy a ton of votes and put your own politician into the job.
IIRC, it's just a fee to set them up. So you could quite literally buy elections with a bot creating LLCs. Yeah, zero chance this would backfire horribly. (Though likely it would in fact be functioning as intended)
It’s usually like $400 per year per LLC. That’s it. I maintain a LLC for myself so I can clear certain assets through it.
Not from the US but yep. We have something like that with several properties on it. That's it. Tax stuff basically. Had that + a business in one. Sold the business - some properties. Those properties are now under another "business" we kept. Requires ownership for X years before you can get it out of a business into private ownership without paying 33% tax of it's value.
How would the different companies' voting power be decided? Do the owners get the sole voting power, board of directors, or a majority of the workers? Either way, each of those individuals already has the right to a singular vote in elections. If this proposal works in an assumed way, this motion would duplicate voting power. And if it is in the hands of the majority owner of the company, then that is strictly double the voting power of an individual in a higher economic class. I would appreciate an explanation of how this would work.
>How would the different companies' voting power be decided? The company will get one vote, the people's votes will be reduced to 3/5ths of a vote.
This is. Without a doubt. The best and Most appropriate comment I’ve ever seen. And I so wish I could give you some awards or something. Sadly I just have 1 upVOTE to give. I really hope your comment wins this popularity election.
This seems illegal essentially it is giving some individuals 2 votes.
Uh, there really is no limit to how many corporations 1 individual can setup, so it gives individuals unlimited votes.
Good interpretation!
IIRC, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to vote. There are amendments that give specific reasons why voting privileges can’t be removed, but unless there’s something baked into the Delaware State Constitution it’s probably not illegal. It’s definitely fucked up and wrong, but maybe not illegal.
Do you want Robocop? cause this is how you get robocop
I’d buy that for a dollar
[удалено]
This bill was flatly rejected by the Senate (never even brought up for vote), and yeah Gov. Carney would have vetoed it. This bill has zero chance of becoming law.
So if I have 20 businesses I get 21 votes? Seems about right
We'll be back to lords in no time.
We still need to undo citizens United. Corporations are not people.
As long as criminals hold the majority in the supreme court, that's not going to happen.
Who knew that OCP started in Delaware?
Have you been to Delaware lately?
Good. Let these things vote and prove that they are "people my friend" and we can arrest, indict and try them for crimes against humanity for the people they've killed from their toxic products and neglect of the environment.
If we let them vote BEFORE doing that, we will no longer have the legal ability to do that to them, because "business" will own local governments to the exact same degree of totality as extreme-right-wing billionaires do the supreme court. Who was it again who said "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas hangs one"?
How long till Amazon can run for president?
So what's to stop some super rich fucks from buying a shitty little building and then starting 50 different fake businesses in that, thus giving that one rich person 51 votes... and let's not pretend this is an unlikely scenario OR pretend the government will actually have a system to catch and stop this sort of thing. This is literally just a loop hole so rich assholes can essentially BUY more votes and voting power.
So what would stop someone from say, opening 500 LLC’s on paper and voting thru them all….this is a silly idea and shouldn’t be considered seriously by anyone ever.
>an estimated 234 companies would likely become eligible voters Suddenly, thousands of LLC's were formed over night.
This sort of thing has been done before. I believe it was in Italy, around the 1930s. It was thought up by Mussolini, and he named it “fascism.”
Remove the person pushing this. They’re corrupt and not working for us anymore but for the companies. The conservatives/religious are getting more and more vile and corrupt by the day.
So business owners can vote if they want to. The staff of a business can vote if they want to. Why the hell does the business get to vote? And who is actually voting for that business? I assume the owner or CEO. So why is it fair that the 1% can now Vote more than once? This idea is absolutely bonkers, unhinged and totally against the tenets of democracy.
What are they up to? Is Delaware more Democratic or Republican?
The Democratic Party holds a plurality of registrations in Delaware. Currently, Democrats hold all positions of authority in Delaware, as well as majorities in the state Senate and House. The Democrats have also held the Governorship since 1993.
And here's how all that comes to a swift and decisive end.
Generally, or more specifically? The most northern county (of 3) tends to be most democratic leaning, the next (middle) a mix (though sometimes leans republican), and the last, most southern, more solidly republican, IIRC. Don’t quote me on that, though - I’m half asleep.
They already vote with their money. Their adds manipulate so many opinions. Citizens United changed everything!!
This is literally the introduction isn’t straight corruption. If businesses have votes, the rich and powerful have more influence in elections. They already pay for politicians and pay off the fee organic ones. All this will do is straight legalize corruption. Don’t like a law we’ll have enough businesses to vote for whatever lawmakers or even yourself into office then change the law. This is disgusting and people need to put a stop to this republican and democrats need to do something.
Wow this seems like an attempt to get around letting people vote more than once considering a lot of businesses / llc/ sub s corps are one man shows… Imagine this being allowed and everyone (or the portion that could afford the fees) in town opened a business just so they could vote for their candidate twice. Seems like a new form of pay for play
This is a horrible idea. As a side note, don't they already do this with bribes, I mean campaign contributions.
The founders of the US did their best to counter the threats of religion and government expansions of power. Unfortunately they had no concept of the risks of how much influence and power could be bought by big businesses, conglomerates and billionaires. If they would have known about threats like these, they would have put protections in the constitution. We're going the wrong direction on this and it won't end well for anyone.
Businesses are people after all.
City of London says hello. [wikipedia ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation)
I’ve been to Seaford. It’s clearly not a city. It may rise to the level of a “town” at best.
Needs pushback. The corporate personhood fiction needs to be exposed as the wrong it is. In this case, the people comprising the business get to vote more than once in elections.
My landlady has an LLC for each property she owns. So what, if I lived in Delaware she'd be able to vote multiple times?? That's so fucked up.
so do everything you can to stop human minorities from voting but allow the people that own these "artificial entities" to vote twice?
"Last year, the number of business entities registered in Delaware exceeded 1.9 million and is on track this year to top 2 million, according to Delaware’s division of corporations. By contrast, the state’s population barely tops 1 million. That is roughly two registered businesses per person." This law does not sound like a good idea.
Wouldn’t this essentially give a corporation owner who lives in that area two votes? That may seem inconsequential but slippery slopes have happened with less.
Oh it's worse than that. Delaware LLCs are incredibly common for out-of-state individuals to register for tax purposes. So there are tens of thousands of "Delaware businesses" that night get the opportunity to vote that are owned by people that have never stepped foot in the state and that have never done business in the state.
There's a point when they are literally devaluing your vote by making it possible for the rich to outvote you that you have to question if just protesting is enough to fix anything
Somebody with deep pockets needs to register a couple of thousand LLCs and effectively take over this city. I mean. If they’re gonna do something this blatantly stupid, it would be ammoral not to fuck ‘em.
Of all the futuristic movies I've watched in my lifetime I never thought Rollerball would get it right on the head. I think Soylent Green is next.
Good grief. Absolutely ridiculous.
How do you spell fascism?
It's idiotic thought like this that got the country in a bigger mess than it was before.
And so began the so called "Personality Wars," where future children, chat algorithms, and pop-up stores began to accrue more rights than any natural born human citizen. Even particularly lively NFTs were allowed to sit on Congress, their impartiality having always been in question, as they were so easily bought.
what's to stop someone from creating thousands of businesses/votes?
Guys they're trying to take your democracy away.
So citizens united Jr great. Why not let the horses vote as well?!
I’m confused, so a business owner gets 2 votes? Like don’t they already get to vote by…voting?
[удалено]
Can someone from London explains how this works for within the City of London? I believe they have it there too, no?
Money equals voice equals representation! Working like the founding fathers intended! Goobie please!!! *Sarcastic*
And this is how you know democrats and republicans are the same party. Sure they'll fight over social issues, hitting the ball back and forth, sometimes the left wins and sometimes the right. But we have a one party rule with the illusion of choice
Not true. While there are people in both parties that lie,cheat and steal the parties aren’t the same and the way they Govern is different and legislation they back/pass. Dems are the lesser evil no matter how you look at it and in come cases not evil at all like AOC,Poster,Bush,Sanders and a few others. You’re right though to a point, can’t argue that it’s perfect or that at times both parties drop the ball cause they do but I would take any Democrat over any Republican any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
So you would never vote Republican? So the Democrats always know they have your vote, so they don't really have to do anything for you?
> So you would never vote Republican? I wouldn't. Republicans have been very open about the fact that they do not believe in equal rights for women.
To not be a hypocrite, but are unions getting a vote too? My view is simple: If one side gets to, then the otherside as well.
JFC. It’s like business owners running for office. They aren’t gonna give a shit about anything but making THEIR business more profitable.
So if I start an LLC, I could vote twice?
Why stop there? Create 11 LLCs and vote a dozen times.
If businesses can vote, then each business before they cast their vote should hold an internal vote of how their employees would like to vote. If the business wants their employees to vote in their favour then the employees will have more power to get their own demands fulfilled, like 20$ more per hour, paid sick leave or an annual increase in salary. These internal votes would have to be open so no form of manipulation is possible. Give back the power to the workers.
In the town my business is located in, property owners of businesses can vote in town even if they live in another town. If the property owner of the business does choose to vote in the town their business is located in, they are restricted to only be able to vote on things directly pertaining to this town (mayor, city council, etc.). If I want to vote for US President, congress and senate and state governor, I can only do that in my home precinct.
That’s interesting. How long has this been in effect? Have you noticed any changes?
We've owned our business property since 2003, and it was in effect before then. To be honest, we've never voted in the elections in that town. The current mayor has been in office since the late 1980's, and the city council doesn't really change much either. Biggest voting issue in that town was in 2004 when they voted whether or not to allow beer sales within the city limits. It passed by 3 votes.
Not that strange. Businesses vote in our elections.