<p>more literally it should mean that for each dollar given to the group, the giver should receive a corresponding portion of control over how it is spent.  So each dollar I give in tax to my country should correspond to a dollars worth of control over how it is spent.  In this manner someone who pays $10,000 in taxes would receive 10,000 votes, while someone who doesn't pay anything does not get a say in how the tax money is spent.  This would alleviate some of the political entropy that pushes nations into welfare state, but has obvious other possible negative implications.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-09T07:26:46.183Z
Not all votes are about spending decisions, but also adoption rights etc. People would like to have some control over their own life, and money may not be the best measure of how much control one deserves. (If market value is a perfect measure, then both your answer and my comment, which were written for free, are worthless.)
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-09T07:27:55.643Z
Independent of all of the above, this is not what the saying is about.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-08T15:14:12.817Z
2020-10-08T15:14:12.817Z
winse
<p>It appears to suggest applying the way shareholders vote in a company to the political setting of democracy: each citizen will have as many votes as his/her monetized wealth. So the rich will have <em>officially</em> "more say" in what gets decided or who gets elected in public office.</p>

<p>Certainly, the general consensus is that economic power does play a role in affecting political outcomes anyway. This approach would make that an official, institutional rule.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-11T17:15:23.717Z
2017-03-11T17:15:23.717Z
Alecos Papadopoulos
<p>Can you tell/ describe me what the phrase <em>'one dollar, one vote'</em> means? But you have to use basic English or kid's English. :-)</p>

<p>I found the phrase in one economics book (Introduction to Economics by Stephen L. Slavin, page 4, 1989) and I do not know what it means. I am from eastern Europe. </p>

<p>Thanks for help.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-11T12:03:31.463Z
I think your question belongs on [Politics.SE] but I may be wrong. You can read about an interpretation of the phrase [here](http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21602250-when-it-comes-setting-policy-views-businesses-and-rich-seem-count)
Giskard
<international-economics>
What does 'one dollar, one vote' mean?
Ľubomír Masarovič
# What does 'one dollar, one vote' mean?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-11)

Can you tell/ describe me what the phrase *'one dollar, one vote'* means? But you have to use basic English or kid's English. :-)

I found the phrase in one economics book (Introduction to Economics by Stephen L. Slavin, page 4, 1989) and I do not know what it means. I am from eastern Europe.

Thanks for help.

**Tags:** international-economics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think your question belongs on [Politics.SE] but I may be wrong. You can read about an interpretation of the phrase [here](http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21602250-when-it-comes-setting-policy-views-businesses-and-rich-seem-count)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-03-11. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

It appears to suggest applying the way shareholders vote in a company to the political setting of democracy: each citizen will have as many votes as his/her monetized wealth. So the rich will have *officially* "more say" in what gets decided or who gets elected in public office.

Certainly, the general consensus is that economic power does play a role in affecting political outcomes anyway. This approach would make that an official, institutional rule.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-10-08. Score: -1

more literally it should mean that for each dollar given to the group, the giver should receive a corresponding portion of control over how it is spent. So each dollar I give in tax to my country should correspond to a dollars worth of control over how it is spent. In this manner someone who pays $10,000 in taxes would receive 10,000 votes, while someone who doesn't pay anything does not get a say in how the tax money is spent. This would alleviate some of the political entropy that pushes nations into welfare state, but has obvious other possible negative implications.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Not all votes are about spending decisions, but also adoption rights etc. People would like to have some control over their own life, and money may not be the best measure of how much control one deserves. (If market value is a perfect measure, then both your answer and my comment, which were written for free, are worthless.)  
> **username_1**: Independent of all of the above, this is not what the saying is about.  

---

