Refreeze5224 said what you claimed I said.

You quoted Fenwick's charter. Where a voter is entitled to vote [in Fenwick] by virtue of being both a resident [in Fenwick] and as an owner of real property [in Fenwick], that voter shall be entitled to only one vote [in Fenwick]; where a voter is entitled to vote [in Fenwick] by ownership of two or more parcels of real property [in Fenwick], that voter shall be entitled to only one vote [in Fenwick]. You dispute this meaning?

Refreeze5224 did not say in Fenwick.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The context is clearly "in Fenwick".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48295844

▲

pseudalopex 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The strongest plausible interpretation of josefritzishere and Refreeze5224 was the judge was wrong because voting in 2 places would violate 1 person 1 vote. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

But that's not true, either.

My town has a village at its core; village residents vote in two places.

Our school district doesn't perfectly match the town's borders, either, so some folks vote in two places there.

One person gets one vote in a particular election.

	▲	pseudalopex 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is not what people mean when they say vote in 2 places commonly. And I said 2 cities before. 1 person 1 vote is an expression of equal representation.[1] Someone who votes in city 1 and city 2 and someone who votes in city 1 solely have unequal representation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man%2C_one_vote