One person, one vote is like a welfare state.

• one vote per person voting is like [public assistance
• To guarantee a minimum
  • lower bound.
• Resources distributed equally to all
  • Maybe UBI is closer.

--- log one vote per person voting is like [public assistance

It is interesting to see the perspective that compares “one person, one vote” to public assistance. Digging deeper into this metaphor, the following thoughts come to mind.

Providing basic rights: Both one-person-one-vote and public assistance are basic rights granted equally to all citizens and can be viewed as a type of social security. Voting is the right to express one’s political will, while welfare is the right to guarantee economic security.

Redistribution factor: In voting, one could say that influence is redistributed because every person is given an equal vote. Welfare is also a mechanism for redistributing tax money collected from society as a whole to those in need. In this sense, both can be seen as “redistribution mechanisms” in terms of social equality and justice.

Questions of efficiency: Just as the welfare system has been criticized by some as “encouraging dependency,” a one-person, one-vote system can also be problematic in that all votes are treated equally, making policies less responsive to diverse needs and influences. For example, questions may arise in terms of efficiency in that the opinions of those with expertise are treated equally with those of the general voting public.

From this perspective, both voting and welfare are “resources distributed equally to all” and designed to protect social equality, but at the same time there is room to reconsider their effectiveness and fairness.

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/一人一票の投票は生活保護のようなもの using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.