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.
There might be an angle where if a given person has the voting POA from two different entities, that person would still only get a single vote, limited by being a natural person? This doesn't seem to be the intent though.
To be [close to] sure you'd have to ask a Delaware attorney, as they should have a good handle on the jurisprudence around this topic.
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.
No, because this is exactly what "one entity/one vote" directly limits. Each entity is still limited to a single vote.
I think if an outsider overtly bought a parcel, created hundreds or thousands of Delaware entities, titled that parcel over to all of them jointly, and tried to register them all to vote, we'd end up with a test case that the court might strike down. But I'd think someone exploiting it at scale, or a politically connected insider for whom the voting registrar looked the other way might get away with it.