[pseudalopex]

1 person 1 vote does not mean in each city where they own property.

[ceejayoz]

"One person, one vote" is clearly a per-race thing, or I'd violate it by voting for President and Senator at the same time.

[pseudalopex]

This did not refute what I said.

[ceejayoz]

You said:

> The owner votes as themselves, and again as the corporate entity.

Per the opinion, which I quoted above, this is not the case.

(I do think it gets instantly messy with multi-owner corporations, though.)

[pseudalopex]

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]

The context is clearly "in Fenwick".

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

[pseudalopex]

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