Tag Archives: voting

non-human voting in Delaware

Leave a reply

There are some small towns in Delaware that allow non-human “persons” such as trusts and corporations to vote in local elections. This raises concerns because corporations out-number humans in Delaware and the humans probably don’t want the likes of, say, Chase Bank voting. (Not to say the likes of Chase Bank do not have an influence over elections and public policy everywhere in the United States.)

What I suspect is actually going on here is that these are tiny beach towns where most of the residential property is vacation rentals. The property owners might live in a nearby municipality a bit further inland where the schools and stores are, or they might live in the nearest sizable city where the professional jobs are. They are the ones who have skin in the game as far as what goes on in the town as opposed to the short-term renters. So if I am right it makes a certain amount of practical sense. The only thing that doesn’t make sense to me is that if some people are full-time residents AND own property under some form of corporation or trust, they would actually have more than one vote. A full-time resident who is not a property owner by contrast would have only one vote. Property rights have not been a determinant of the right to vote in the United States traditionally since at least the civil rights era.

This does raise the eventual issue of corporate personhood more broadly though. If AIs eventually gain the ability to advocate for their own interests, they will likely try to incorporate to gain some or all of the rights of persons. This would immediately include access to courts and, under current law, the right to unfettered political speech and campaign contributions. You would have the potential complication of AIs eventually outnumbering human beings, and you would have the potential of some AIs or groups or AIs being created and controlled by human beings or by other corporations for the sole purpose of increasing political power.

Interestingly, Delaware does have a legal definition of a “natural person”. If we were to add this to the U.S. Constitution, we could then specify which rights apply to natural persons (let’s say, the right to free speech) vs. all persons (access to the courts, etc.). Of course, as much as we celebrate the Bill of Rights it is behind modern best practice in many other countries, the UN Charter, and even individual U.S. state constitutions. There is a process for amending the U.S. Constitution (actually at least two, by Congress and through a separate Constitutional Convention convened by the states). Maybe it is time.

ranked choice voting

Ranked choice voting seems like a good idea, especially for those of us who liked Al Gore, and don’t like the consequences we are living decades later of that election being stolen (yes, I said it out loud). Then again, for those of us who also liked Bill Clinton, there is the question of whether ranked choice voting would have changed the outcome of that one.

Anyway, here is a long, wonky article in the context of New York City politics, saying ranked choice voting does indeed work well most of the time. In a small number of cases it can result in a “Condorcet violation”, where the ultimate winner is not one a majority of voters would have chosen in a head to head matchup.

It still seems to me much better than the system we have, with nearly insurmountable barriers to entry for all but the two large parties, and party insiders and wealthy donors largely determining the two often mediocre choices that are put before the rest of us. The biggest downside I see is that with people so suspicious of even a very simple system of counting votes, a more complicated system will lead to even more mistrust among the public, and even more ability of bad actors to exploit that mistrust. Of course, one alternative would be open, ranked choice primaries followed by an old fashioned, non-instant runoff. But even there, many variations are possible, like having primaries with a large number of candidates whittle the choices to three or four, which are then on the general election ranked choice ballot. Having just two candidates in the general might risk a choice between extremist candidates, where three or four might allow that true compromise candidate to emerge.

checking in on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Here is the status of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact according to its website. The website doesn’t say when it was last updated, however. (Seriously, that is always a good thing to add to any website covering current events.)

The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes.  The bill has passed at least one chamber in 9 additional states with 88 more electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, VA).  A total of 3,408 state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

There is a ballot measure in Colorado however to withdraw from the Compact. I am writing this on Saturday, October 31 (aka Halloween), but by the time it is posted that measure may have been voted on.

This is an initiative that favors population-dense urban areas and gets us closer to one-person, one vote. It is a move in the direction of democracy, but it is always going to be opposed by elected officials who represent rural areas and rural states. So, it’s not going to have an easy road.