First, it's merely a theoretical concept, sincerely asked. Should all votes count the same? While one vote / one person is excellent at forming a majority, what is inherently correct / good / fair / right / reasonable about that? We've discussed any number of issues where the majority opinion isn't always correct - and sometimes, can be just flat wrong. And usually, we don't struggle to form a consensus that "might" does not always perfectly equate to "right", if even at all. And what is a majority but a measurement of "might", ultimately? Suppose you were in a room with 100 people who were tasked with planning the construction of a new building that we would each inhabit, once built. Now suppose that it was agreed to determine the awarding of that task based on a simple majority vote. What would happen if myself and 48 others wanted JG to build it, believing him best qualified, but 51 others preferred Indy, because he had promised larger bathrooms, and despite having no experience with construction of any kind. Why is it correct that Indy be allowed to construct that building, at both the behest of - and risk to - the entire community? Mix up the example however you want: Use Card and taxes, BPV in fighting a war, RB/OV in pleasuring several harems of women, IP and anything science-y, TennTra and anything math-y, or NYY and anything involving 2-3 minute stands in public restroom facilities. Does this make sense? So, it raises the question: Should some votes count more / less than others? I'm (honestly) not leading this anywhere,to any set conclusion, as a means to raise a larger GOTCHA question, nor am I advocating thay anyone should actually not be allowed to vote / trying to overthrow democracy, being racist, etc. - so try not to worry with where it lands - but purely focus on the question, itself.