🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard K. Downer" <richard.k.downer@boeing.com> wrote:

...
>> >I think it's quite fair to only allow people to vote in one location.
>> 
>> Why is that fair?...

>I'm saying that each person gets one vote. You cannot (or at least I
>don't believe you should be able to) buy votes by paying taxes in
>multiple jurisdictions.
>> 

Well, in the province of British Columbia, you can! This is
according to the RSBC 1996 "Municipal Act".

>[snip]
>> 
>> What I, and any reasonably rational and fair and democratic
>> individual  might also think is that "taxation without
>> representation" is fascist.
>
>And I, and any resonably rational and fair and democratic individual
>might also think, is that buying votes is elitist at best.
>

I have to disagree - I'm not "buying" a vote any more than
my neighbours are.  He/she pays  real property tax and so do
I.  He can vote - I can't.

...<swipe at the "rich kids" snipped>
>
>Apparantly not, if you're not willing to pay the price of not voting
>everywhere you happen to own property. 

Sorry - but you are OTL on this.  I pay a price:  up to
three times my neighbours tax loads.  If I could transfer my
job , believe you me I would.  Heck if I could find a decent
job I would.

>What about corporations -- they
>own property, they pay taxes, yet they don't get a vote. Do you think
>any legal entity that owns property should get a vote just for owning
>property?
>

True.  Corporations or any other legal entities are not
allowed a vote. The Municipal Act is specific in denying
corporations a vote. In an obtuse sense, though, this makes
sense.  A corporation, while a separate "individual" is
typically owned by someone or a number of someones.
Granting a vote to a corporation would give at least one
person a duplicate vote (in theory anyway...)

Interestingly, if my wife were to make this her primary
residence (and I'm gonna ask the tax lawyers about this...)
SHE could vote in elections.

>> 
>>  But do you realize that non-local residents to an area in
>> BC _can_ vote (non-resident elector clause in the current
>> Municipal Act)?  WHat that means is that a full time BC
>> resident DOES have the right to vote in two places.
>
>I did not know that. If true, then BC has some screwy rules and I can
>understand why you're upset.

Yup!  This is what I've been saying all along.  You can
check it out at (I can't quote it due to copyright laws - or
so says the web page!)
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/stat_reg/statutes/32300_03.htm#3473

> So, does this allow BC residents to vote
>mulitple times in national elections, too? Provincial elections?

No and No. 

They only get to vote in any jurisdiction where they have
property (elector rolls) on local or municipal issues.  I
beleive that Federal and Provincial elections are covered by
Federal and other provincial statutes accordingly.

> If they
>only allow this multiple voting in local elections, how does each
>jurisdiction know which votes to count and which to ignore? 

There are specific rules in the Municipal Act that cover
such things.  Bottom line though, is that there are  no real
lists that are easily used for local elections - the tax
rolls are what was used in this referendum.

>Are there
>multiple ballots? If so, how do they know which ballot to give you
>(local only vs. local & national)? It seems like such an administrative
>nightmare that I don't see why they'd do it, unless the people demanded
>it in a referendum, and I find that hard to believe since this would be
>seen by many as another perk for the rich. I'd be curious to learn more
>about this...
>

Check out the web site listed above.

>> 
>> So basically the BC government says we'll take your
>> non-resident money but if as you reside SOMEWHERE in the
>> province you can tell your neighbour what to do.
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't follow that. Are you saying that if your primary
>residence is in BC then you can also vote in other BC elections, but if
>your primary residence is outside BC then you cannot vote in any BC
>elections?

Yes!!!  Can you say "disporportionate taxation without
representation?"

> You're right, that doesn't seem fair; but as I say, allowing
>multiple votes at all doesn't seem fair to me.

I can accept your point on multiple votes - but it is really
galling to have that dual standard (non-resident electors).
Either ALL property owners have a say or only  "true"
locals.  But of course on this latter point we may disagree
- and not that I want to run the locality that is not
currently my permanent residence, but that as a taxpayer it
is my right to be able to influence local issues.  To what
degree, however...(starts another thread...)

Tom