| ▲ | black6 6 hours ago |
| If I own property in multiple municipalities/states, then I should be able to vote in all of them on local issues. |
|
| ▲ | samwiseg 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Absolutely not. If you don’t live there, then your vote shouldn’t matter as much as someone who does live there. |
|
| ▲ | postflopclarity 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| that's a different legal question than the one here. |
| |
| ▲ | toast0 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | postflopclarity 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | correct. and the comment I replied to is about allowing voting for non-resident property owners when the ownership IS held by a natural person. | | |
| ▲ | toast0 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The poster did not indicate how they hold their ownership. Many people hold their real estate indirectly; a trust is common; if I read the opiniom correctly, a majority of properties in the municipality in question are held in trust. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | yesfitz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why? |
|
| ▲ | Henchman21 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Nice assertion. No. You should be able to vote where you live. Full stop. Nothing else. You don't get more than one vote. |
| |
| ▲ | akramachamarei an hour ago | parent [-] | | What about the notion of No Taxation without Representation? With that in mind, shouldn't you get to vote wherever you are (substantially) taxed? |
|
