re: #58 JasonA

I’m not sure what you’re trying to show me. Those shareholders live somewhere and they vote for their own representation.

Hi JasonA! I do understand your point about businesses and representation - to an extent. However, if a business has a branch operation in a particular district, the policies and positions of candidates - and representatives - can have a huge impact on that business. Here’s an example that may help:

My friend had a dry-cleaning business. His main plant, drop stores, and two laundromats were all located inside the town limits. However, his home (which he’d bought and lived in for years before starting the business) was located outside the city limits. As a result, he could vote in county elections, and for school board members, but not for city council or mayor - or on bond issues.

At first, this sounds reasonable. However, his business, his equipment, and his property were all taxed by the city. And, he had no representation, as he was ineligible to vote in the elections.

I suppose you could argue that he should have sold his home and moved into the city if he wanted to vote, or that he shouldn’t have started his business in the town. But a reasonable person could just as easily conclude that, if someone has a business that provides revenue to the town, and is subject to the whims of the city government, they should also have a vote - the alternative being closing/relocating the business - which benefits neither the town, nor the business.

This is not to say that a “business” should have a vote. But a designate (an owner or designated representative in the case of a larger company) casting one vote to protect the interest of the business where taxation is a consideration - well that might not be an unreasonable idea.