Did you know that different water districts have different ways to vote in district elections? Some districts have a one-landowner, one-vote structure; others have a voting structure where the vote is weighted by amount of acreage the vote caster owns; others have a voting structure where the votes is weighted by the dollar value of the land the voters owns. ‘Aha!’, you said to yourself! ‘At long last, I know the difference between a water district and an irrigation district!’ Not so fast, Spanky. I thought that too, but we’re both wrong.She's getting at an interesting question that I cover in my dissertation [S 4.2.1]. How does the apportionment of votes affect the efficiency of the outcome? If votes are per capita but the topic is land value, the voting outcome may favor the landless at the expense of the land-owners. This is the case at Imperial Irrigation District, where people in the cities vote against water sales because they want to keep their jobs (see yesterday's post).
Bottom Line: One man, one vote makes sense when all policies affect all men equally. If they do not, voting should be proportional to who bears the costs of the policy. (Why are income taxes no higher in the US? Is that a sign that the rich control policy -- or is the fact that the rich do pay nearly all the income taxes a sign of a soak the rich policy?)
Thanks to Noumenon for the pointer