Country recorder has a list of judgements against people and entities found to be in breach of contract. This is what exists but probably not what you were thinking of.
> People believing they are entitled to dictate what other people do with their property
Yes, I believe that’s called “society” and while we are all very disappointed about your personal liberties I’m afraid some compromises had to be made to allow people other than you to have property rights too.
That’s why it’s important to have a deadline, but it’s a pretty poor answer to my question. ducking this question is an indication your point - bolstered by an ad hominem attack and an appeal to authority - is meaningless.
> The requirement for ballots to merely be postmarked by election day is insane. If my credit card bill is due on June 5, it's due on the 5th, not postmarked
What do you reckon your credit card bill (private obligation, governed by contract law) has to do with your ballot (civil right, governed by constitution)? I have to return my rental car on a certain day and my milk expires on a certain day, but I wouldn’t think to compare either to a mail-in ballot.
That would be “insane,” to use your preferred terminology.
If there are thirty companies, and each owns a piece of land, one entity/one vote is pretty clearly observed.
If those thirty companies reconfigure their holdings so they each own one thirtieth of each of thirty parcels, under your model all of a sudden each company has thirty votes.
I believe if you tried to exploit the ambiguity in the law in a way that mattered enough for anyone to care, you would catch a lawsuit predicated on the idea that the one entity/one vote concept was violated by this trick. I think a court would approve of the idea.
I still agree with you that this law is poor, I just don’t think this exploit flies in court. But no one knows until they try.
I apologize for being dismissive. You have read this a little more closely than I have.
Do you think Section 9A(3), which more or less says these rules would be construed under one person/entity, one vote would break your plan? I believe if you tried to have thirty voters tied to one parcel of land by joint tenancy, that would be how the court stops you. The plaintiff here is arguing vote dilution, but vote dilution gets multiplied by an arbitrary factor in your model.
This idea is equally wrong for different reasons, but I do have a measure of appreciation for you having abandoned your first intrinsically broken idea upon the first resistance you encountered. Fail fast!
Why would thirty companies that owned a company together get one vote each instead of one thirtieth? The thirty companies would each have one vote in determining how to vote the one parent's vote.
(You are, however, correct to note that you can record absolute gibberish if you want to, so long as you pay the recorder. This does not effectuate a transfer of land, though; it merely serves as constructive notice to the person who is bound to look for such recorded notice, i.e., the beneficial purchaser for value. In a way, you could think of the function of a recorder as preventer of race conditions, not the database).
> What is the smallest subplot you can split a parcel into?
An acre, here. See your local zoning code or land statutes for minimum lot sizes. Consult agreements that run with the land for additional restrictions.