Talk:One man, one vote

Untitled

Might be nice to mention the Terry Pratchett parody: Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.

Or from random ballot: "The random ballot voting method takes the one person one vote principle to an extreme by only counting the vote of one person. In an election or referendum, the ballot of a single voter is selected at random, and that ballot decides the result of the election."

Political Emancipation

The wiki page Political_emancipation could also use some attention. Currently it is only a stub. Particularly the explanation of the term 'political emancipation' entailing 'equal status of individual citizens in relation to the state, equality before the law, regardless of religion, property, or other “private” characteristics of individual persons' is construed to be an 'opinion' and 'not delivering a neutral point of view.' Does anyone have more information on the word 'emancipation' also being used in the political context of establishing (or any step moving towards) equality in light of the law? Inserting the Voting Rights Act as such a step of political emancipation, for instance, was repeatedly erased.

The question one could pose, is: When there have been only 3 African-American Senators in modern times (out of more than the 1500 Senators in total), would you say that political emancipation has been achieved?

I don't know who you are (you should sign your name) or why you're making these comments here, but what are you talking about? Any of us can vote and any of us can run and what more do you want? You want to say that, if my people are 12% of the populashun that we need to get 12% of the senators? And if we do that for senators, then why not teachers, firemans, police, presidents, and NBA players? Is that what you want? The Real Rodney King 19:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Origins of phrase

These introductory comments are simply wrong, and appear to me to be original research. The origins of OMOV are correctly alluded to later in the article. 216.199.161.66 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Much better now. 216.199.161.66 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

I strongly recommend moving this page to "One man, one vote." In practical terms, it will make no difference, since redirects exist already and can exist the other way as well. But I tell you what—I came across this page only by hitting "random article", and was very confused at first. As a sometimes-student of political science (admittedly, it's been a few years), I've never heard anyone say "O-M-O-V" (though I've seen it written a couple of times). Look, people who are into this topic say "one man, one vote." Period. It's not even as easy to say "OMOV" as it is to say "one man, one vote". I'll await comments before making the move. Unschool 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Might be time to move it to "one person, one vote".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - would make more sense to host the article at one person, one vote Superb Owl (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Northern Ireland - Some perspective, please

What does this mean?

*When Northern Ireland came into being, it adopted the same political system which was in place at that time in Westminster. However, whilst the British parliament updated its system some years after Northern Ireland had set up its devolved government, the system in the province remained the same.

To those of us not intimately familiar with the subject, the above entry does absolutely nothing to clarify matters. It is so vague, so broad, as to approach the quality of a non sequitur. Without some clarification, it will need to be deleted. Unschool 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article as a whole is messy because this is a statement that means different things in different parts of the world. In the US it seems "One man, one vote" is a bit of a misnomer as the focus is on apportionment - perhaps "one man, one vote, one value" is what is meant (although many would argue that a vote in an ultra marginal constituency has more "value" than one in a rock solid safe seat). But apportionment is a very different thing from franchise entitlement.

In the UK "One man/person, one vote" has historically meant that every citizen should be entitled to vote and to have an equal number of votes. Historically the Westminster Parliament was elected by those with a sufficient interest in the counties, boroughs and universities entitled to send members (in the counties it was to hold property worth 40 shillings freehold, the borough franchises were all over the place and the universities had a graduate franchise) and those who qualified for the franchise for more than one constituency (e.g. owners of business premises or university graduates) were entitled to vote in all of them. (This was somewhat tempered as travel limited the number that one could physically get to, whilst many constitencies were not contested in elections.)

As time went on the focus of attention moved from places being enfranchised to the electorates and many argued that a citizen should only be able to vote for one representative. Successive changes to both the Westminster (completed 1948) and local government franchise (completed around the same time, bar the Corporation of London) have moved to a system whereby entitlement to vote is based solely on one's place of residence. (It does create the interesting problem that many people who work outside their district of residence, particularly those in suburbs and commuter towns, have no say in elections to local government bodies who make major decisions impacting on them. This is the reason why the Corporation of London, which adminsters an area with less than 10,000 residents but huge financial resources, retains the business franchise.)

When Northern Ireland was created in 1921 it retained the same ratepayer franchise for local government that was then in common use in the rest of the UK. However unlike the rest it didn't change to a "one person, one vote" system in the 1940s. It was alleged that this gave a bias to Unionists as Protestants were more likely to qualify for extra votes than Catholics, although it seems the practical effect of this on control of councils was limited - see [1]. However it gave the Civil Rights movement one of the best slogans for their reform demands - "One man, one vote". Timrollpickering 15:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OMOV as an argument against voting systems other than plurality

This text was removed:

In Alaska, when instant runoff voting was being proposed, League of Women Voters President Cheryl Jebe said, "It appears to compromise the well-established principle of one person, one vote, established by the United States Supreme Court."

However, it appears to still be useful information. OMOV is frequently used as a rationale against implementing voting systems other than plurality (e.g. approval voting, instant-runoff voting, cumulative voting, etc.) Perhaps we can present those arguments and their rebuttals? 129.174.2.205 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The above edit was indeed by a blocked user, and it was removed by another blocked user. I've verified the source, and the edit is useful. I reverted it back.--Abd (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really explain what she means though. There's a lot of crap talked about Alternative Vote (and the article is poorly researched - the "Lord Mayor of London" is not directly elected and the Mayor of London is elected by Supplementary Vote which is different), with some people claiming it gives some voters more than others when it doesn't - it just transfers their single vote if their initial choice of candidate is utterly unsuccessful. Every voter has the same voting power in determing the final outcome in the seat. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Instant-runoff voting is more congruent with OPOV than plurality or first past the post. It also reduces the spoiler effect to negligible, and makes strategic and tactical voting virtually impossible. Dualus (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

References

US Senate / State Senates

The article gets a bit confused in this paragraph:

Additionally, in most US states, electoral districts for seats in the upper house or Senate were ostensibly created at least partially on the basis of geography, rather than population. Whereas lower house seats might or might not be reapportioned on a decennial basis, such as those of the US House of Representatives, in most states, state senate district boundaries were never redrawn. As the United States became more urban, this led to the dilution of the votes of urban voters when casting ballots for state senate seats. A city dweller's vote had less influence on the make-up of the state legislature than did a rural inhabitant's.

Is this about states or federal voting? Some states do not have upper houses or senates, and US senate seats were never selected based on population, there were two seats for each state. So what exactly does that paragraph mean? Seriously, for the US senate at least, "One man, one vote" has never been true. Gront (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The US Senate was not originally directly elected but selected by the state legislatures because they represent the states/state governments (the German upper house, the Bundesrat, operates on this principle even more explicitly). Direct election of Senators came about as a combination of populist demands and legislatures regularly being deadlocked over Senator selection, not because of a belief they are meant to be directly representing the people (that's the House of Representatives's job).

IIRC 49 of the 50 US states have an upper house. Some were constructed on a non constituency basis - e.g. "1 senator per county". Others did start off with constituencies aiming for something like equal sized seats but didn't redraw the boundaries resulting in massive variance of the number of electors. (Something else that often confuses matters is that the non-voting population is rarely proportionally distributed to the voting and often people freely confuse population, those eligible to vote, those enrolled to vote and those actually voting in discussions on apportionment.)

The paragraph is also falling into the trap of assuming a voter's influence on the election is determined by the size of the seat they're in. A voter in a 20,000 constituency that is rock solid for one party has "less influence on the make-up of the state legislature" than one in a 100,000 constituency that is a key marginal where control of the legislature often hinges. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

One man, one vote → One person, one vote – Remove gender bias. Per WP:NC, 923,000 Google hits for the proposed name, versus 1.5 million for the current name. Dualus (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The term had its highest prominence when such exactitude was not a concern. We should use the most common form of it, not translate it for modern sensibilities. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I get 36,800 Google News hits for "one man, one vote", 25,200 for "one person, one vote". "One man, one vote" is also the more common search term, according to Google Insights. Just to be complete, here is an ngram. Kauffner (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where the gender bias is here. Although one meaning of man is "male person", the use of man for "all humans collectively; mankind" is quite common. I doubt anyone at this point would believe that "one man, one vote" refers to the former and not the latter. —  AjaxSmack  00:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm minded to support - although "one man, one vote" is historically the more common term, "one person, one vote" is more common on Google Books in the last 5 years.[2][3] The problem is that the article mostly talks about historical usage - it could do with more on current uses of the phrase (either version). (Interestingly, I note that universal suffrage doesn't even link here.) 109.154.71.251 (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Historically, there has been gender bias in voting. But we should go with the most common term, which is "one man, one vote." StAnselm (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Definition

Please provide (a) definition(s) in the introduction. 64.128.27.82 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead does not reflect article

The Lead has most content related to use of this phrase in the decolonisation era in less developed countries, but does not discuss these at all in the body of the article, which is devoted to the meaning of the phrase and changes in apportionment in UK, US and Northern Ireland. If the article is to stay as is, the Lead needs to change. If the Lead was to address the topic, the article needs to be expanded.Parkwells (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Closing early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Calidum 03:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

---

One man, one vote → One person, one vote – Using gender-neutral language, per WP:GNL. TenorTwelve (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:GNL isn't a policy or even a guideline. WP:COMMONNAME is the policy that we use to determine article titles, and the common name of this topic is the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Common name of the topic. Gulbenk (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per given rationale. WP:GNL is an essay. The guideline I think you mean to refer to is MOS:GNL, and that does not apply to WP:TITLES where WP:COMMONNAME is the policy, in support of the foundational value of WP:Verifiability. -- Netoholic @ 02:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move absent recent sources using "one person" in such a manner. Though the subject deals with this kind of stuff, the phrase is usually quoted as "one man". ONR (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Still the most recognizable name of topic, 4:1 from ngrams [4] — Andy Anderson 05:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per policy WP:COMMONNAME. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The proposed title might imply that children should be able to vote. Children form a sizeable percentage of the human population, and they are traditionally excluded from having voting rights. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other Uses

This section seems to be almost entirely comprised of an argument in favor of IRV. None of the sources cited are legally binding, just opinions of various activism groups. The contrast between the rest of the article, which relies on Supreme Court decisions, vs the IRV line items which are substantiated entirely with third party opinion gives a false implication to the reader that the two are equally substantive. I suggest either deleting these from the section entirely, or collapsing them into a single bullet to the effect of, "No Supreme Court case has definitively ruled on the legality of IRV, but many supporting advocacy groups believe it is consistent with the 14th Amendment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:47:D49D:BE00:6C95:EDEC:C6AE:4BA1 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources

To start with, here are some sources from the US legal community:

• The canonical Black's Law Dictionary titles its entry "one-person, one-vote rule" (8th ed., p. 1122).
• The central US case on this doctrine, written more than half a century ago, used "one person, one vote": "The conception of political equality . . . can mean only one thing—one person, one vote." Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963).
• Overall, and despite the weight of history, a site search of the Cornell LII's US Supreme Court collection shows that "one person one vote" has been used in 46 Supreme Court opinions, as against 39 for "one man one vote."
  • See, e.g., Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120, 1134 (2016) (Thomas, J., concurring) (asserting that "this Court has never provided a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle"); see also Id. at 1134 n.1 (noting that "[t]he Court's opinions have used 'one person, one vote' and 'one man, one vote' interchangeably"). To be more misogynistic than Clarence Thomas is certainly an achievement of sorts, but not one that Wikipedia should be striving for.

It's not just the US, though. Other jurisdictions seem to agree:

• Although neither version of the phrase seems to have achieved very much currency in the UK or Ireland, a caselaw search on BAILII nonetheless likewise shows 8 hits for "one person one vote" vs. 5 for "one man one vote" (and 3 of those 5 appear to be the same case).
• A quick dip into the caselaw databases on AustLII likewise gives 36 hits for "one person one vote" and 31 for "one man one vote". Further, as one might expect, the "one man one vote" hits tend to be quoting from or referring to historical sources. See, e.g. Roach v Electoral Commissioner & Anor [2007] HCATrans 275 (12 June 2007) ("the theoretical idea mid-19th Century in the colonies was one man, one vote"), as compared to the seminal McKinlay case: Attorney-General (Cth); Ex rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth [1975] HCA 53; (1975) 135 CLR 1 (1 December 1975) ("The principle of 'one person, one vote' is expressly included in s. 30 of the Australian Constitution").
• In India too, the "one person one vote" phrasing is of very long standing. See, e.g., Baidyanath Panjiar vs Sitaram Mahto & Ors, 1970 SCR (1) 839 (noting that "Section 18 enunciates the principle 'one person -- one vote'").
• By way of a quick example from elsewhere, Inoka Kubuabola, Fijian Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated in 2012 that Fiji was transitioning toward "a kind of sustainable democracy based on the principle of 'one person, one vote, one value'."
• Of course, given the global role of English, this isn't even limited to English-language jurisdictions: in Indonesia, the phrase "one person one vote one value" is so commonly used that it has been reduced to its acronym (prinsip opovov) (e.g.).

Even if we were to ignore legal usage for some reason, the results would be the same. Here are some specific articles and site-search results in well-regarded sources worldwide:

• BBC: Wales History: One Person, One Vote (Google site search: 298 "person", 171 "man")
• CNN: Supreme Court takes up 'one person, one vote' (Google site search: 493 "person", 414 "man")
• New York Times: Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote’ (Google site search: 1250 "person", 986 "man" -- note that includes the NYT's vast historical archives)
  • Notably, "one person one vote" gets a special entry in the New York Times Style Guide (5th ed.). The entry is mostly concerned with hyphenation but does spare a half-line to mention the rather obvious point that "one man one vote" should be avoided.
• The Times of India: "Rampaging group identities – Hindu, Muslim or other – are antithetical to the notion of one man one vote." (Google site search on indiatimes.com: 139 "person", 113 "man")
• The EastAfrican: "Somalia last held one-person, one-vote elections in March 1969" (Google site search: 181 "person", 76 "man")
• Deutsche Welle: Is Somalia ready for a one-person one-vote election? (Google site search: 250 "person", 6 "man")

I'll stop here, but obviously there are plenty more where those came from. Across the board "one person one vote" is more common, and often overwhelmingly so.

Of course, even if this could be considered a close call based on common usage (it can't), basic NPOV/BIAS considerations would tip the balance heavily in favor of siting this article at "one person, one vote."

Didn't we use to do research around here? Looking at the above discussions, I'd love to be able to come up with a good-faith reason why so many of my fellow Wikipedians were in such a hurry to defend a misogynistic and exclusionary article title that they couldn't spare a moment to make even the most cursory inquiry into what the WP:COMMONNAME actually is. But I'm having a tough time coming up with any remotely plausible good-faith explanation. -- Visviva (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Developing countries - Successful examples

The article currently says "Notable leaders elected in such systems include Mahatma Gandhi". Is this correct? Would it be better to refer to Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India? Alekksandr (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 11:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

One man, one vote → One person, one vote – The above sources section discusses that as a legal phrase, the version "one person, one vote" is more common, sometimes by a significant factor, which means WP:COMMONNAME supports this move. Even in common language, the above sources section shows multiple references that the version "one person, one vote" is more common, which means WP:COMMONNAME supports this move. The previous book ngram claims are old, the latest ngram from 2019 shows 1:1 usage in books. Besides manual of style MOS:GENDER applies. The legal term "one person one vote" does not include children, there is no ambiguity. Due to the decades-long controversy, the WP:SNOW does not apply and this request should not be closing early. HudecEmil (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine with me. — Andy Anderson 03:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support this is also broader/more gender neutral since it also includes woman, children and adolescents. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The term had its highest prominence when such exactitude was not a concern. We should use the most common form of it, not translate it for modern sensibilities. It's only a specific legal phrase in about one country; elsewhere it's a historic term from enfranchisement campaigns. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Searching both up shows that "One person, one vote" is indeed slightly more used. It doesn't matter the "essence" or historical vs modern usage, it is simply used more, per COMMONNAME. The Tips of Apmh 14:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It's as a common slogan of historical importance that it is best known. Difference is pretty overwhelming. Walrasiad (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• WP:IDONTLIKEIT that the term is commonly rendered as "one man, one vote" but WP:COMMMONNAME and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS are pretty clear that we use the commonly used name for a concept and not attempt to go on a crusade (or other another metaphorical religious holy war or non religious struggle) by using gender neutral terminology for instance. The cited ngram is not 1:1, dividing 564 by 492 yields approximately 1.15, which means "one man, one vote" is 15% more likely to be used. The high amount of significant digits obscures this fact but it remains regardless and I will oppose. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  I realize this may be a bit of a side-note, but "One Man, One Vote" slogan was itself a holy war. For instance, in my country, during the colonial period, locals were usually addressed with the diminutive "Boy". The use of the term "One Man" was not casual, but emphatic, underlining the demand for both dignity and equality. Erase that history at your peril. Walrasiad (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. And since the term is primarily used in historical contexts, it would be inaccurate to censor the name based on 2022 standards. —  AjaxSmack  02:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting proposal between One man, one vote and One person, one vote

I propose the parts about one person, one vote to be split into a separate page called One person, one vote. The parts about One man, one vote would stay on this page. Reasons:

* 1) One man, one vote is primarily used in historical contexts, as noted above by  AjaxSmack .
* 2) Difference is pretty overwhelming as noted above by Walrasiad.
* 3) In following case only One person, one vote is present: Supreme Court case Gray v. Sanders.
* 4) Censoring One person, one vote would violate manual of style MOS:GENDER.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HudecEmil (talk • contribs) 07:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC) 

7 days and no opinions? @Andy Anderson @Crouch, Swale @Timrollpickering @The Tips of Apmh @Showiecz @Walrasiad @IAmChaos @Chess @ AjaxSmack  HudecEmil (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see the new discussion, hence why I didn't reply. Anyway, If you want to split, what specific sections of the article would you move to the new page? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 19:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Already drafted: [5]

• second part of introduction about US supreme court use of one person, one vote
• section about court cases that are mentioning only one person, one vote
• some of the other uses, some of developing countries examples which apply to one person, one vote
• a summary of these split sections would stay in One man, one vote HudecEmil (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Only if there is enough difference otherwise the terms are probably synonymous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Significant difference:

  • Section British trade unionist George Howell - not synonyms.
  • Section United Kingdom - not synonyms.
  • Section United States- Historical background - not synonyms.
  • Section on court cases - no synonyms. HudecEmil (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree in theory but your linked draft does not sufficiently disambiguate the two terms. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible introduction disambiguating the two terms: One person, one vote is the slogan of universal suffrage, which gives all adult citizens equal rights to vote. Historically preceding is the One man, one vote slogan, representing universal manhood suffrage, in which all adult male citizens are allowed to vote. HudecEmil (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@HudecEmil: Again, I agree in principle, but the diff you linked doesn't cover the distinctive use of "one man, one vote" to refer to universal manhood suffrage. I'd suggest you create a draft article at Draft:One man, one vote, then people can see what the split would actually entail and you can work on it further. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Created Draft:One man, one vote and Draft:One person, one vote with a first draft of the split. Appreciate further improvement suggestions, and removal of the speedy deletions. HudecEmil (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I oppose. It’s basically the same concept though with different applications (e.g. in the US expansion of suffrage and numerical equality of districts). These discussions should therefore all remain on this same page, a summary that should be easily findable by users. Of course, detailed discussions of individual situations should go to separate, linked pages. — Andy Anderson 13:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly, you want one overview/summary page of all slogans + have separate pages for each slogan individually? I support that. But what would be the Lemma of the overview page? HudecEmil (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, we had the discussion about the lemma previously, with four in favor of the more general term (one person one vote) and four opposed, so it seems it remains what it is now. But the more general term should certainly be redirected to this page. Andy Anderson 02:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm against redirecting overview page to any particular slogan, possibly a Disambiguation is better? I suggest the lemma for overview page to be "Suffrage slogans" and would discuss and link following slogans: One man, one vote, One person, one vote, One vote, one value. HudecEmil (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 One vote, one value is currently a separate page. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Are the drafts for splitting Draft:One man, one vote and Draft:One person, one vote ok? Further changes can be done on these drafts. HudecEmil (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

After 7 days implemented the drafted changes: Draft:One man, one vote and Draft:One person, one vote. HudecEmil (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there consensus for implementing drafted changes at Draft:One man, one vote and Draft:One person, one vote? I haven't got any responses in almost 2 weeks, went ahead and implemented the drafted changes, then @CollectiveSolidarity reverted those edits on One person, one vote asking for consensus. @Andy Anderson @Crouch, Swale @Timrollpickering @The Tips of Apmh @Showiecz @Walrasiad @IAmChaos @Chess @ AjaxSmack  HudecEmil (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@HudecEmil. Could you just create an expansion in One man, one vote simply explaining the difference between the two terms and the latter’s significance, say, in political contexts? It could be less confusing than creating a couple of similar articles that might confuse readers. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Following Wikipedia:Splitting#Content split "consideration must be given both to notability of the offshoot topic and to potential neutrality issues" The usage of One person, one vote in relevant supreme court cases with significant coverage shows that the splitting passes Wikipedia:Notability criterium.
• I believe not splitting is more confusing for the reader, because they might search a phrase with significant coverage in supreme court cases and would get a different phrase with different meaning.

Also repeating:

• Difference is pretty overwhelming as noted above by Walrasiad. HudecEmil (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@HudecEmil: The draft at Draft:One man, one vote still doesn't cover the term in a male-centric sense. The introduction does, but the body of the article does not. I can't really agree with this split. My support is conditional on the proposed article analyzing the term in its sense of one biological male, one vote. The draft does not do this. A few points:

• Merely from reading the United Kingdom section, every section discusses the use of "one man, one vote" to include women. For instance, "Historical background" discusses numerous qualifications but does not even mention gender. How has the voting rights of men differed from women in the United Kingdom? When did all men get the vote, versus women? According to our page at Reform Act, it seems woman's suffrage was delayed in the United Kingdom relative to men. To justify a separate article, I'd like to hear how the usage of this slogan changed over time and whether people advocating for universal male suffrage included women in the late 1800s. But the article just mushes them all together and treats "one man, one vote" and "one person, one vote" as interchangeable.
• Likewise, the United States section does not cover how the movement for male suffrage differed from female suffrage. The section covers the history of the term from 1920 onwards. It's inconceivable that they meant "one man, one vote" in the sense of one male, one vote given that women were guaranteed the right to vote by the 19th amendment in 1920.

I repeatedly said I agreed in principle because I believed there might be a differing usage of the term "one man, one vote" to mean something different than "one person, one vote". But based on the draft you've provided, I don't see how the terms differ. I oppose any split if you want my formal !vote. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The two phrases have the same difference as Universal manhood suffrage and Universal suffrage. Maybe you are right and Universal manhood suffrage should be merged into Universal suffrage since Universal manhood suffrage is too short/not well enough explained. HudecEmil (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Please be constructive and let me know which parts of the draft are missing which information. HudecEmil (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the others, I oppose split. At a short glance, the most famous use of one person, one vote as a slogan (in Gray v. Sanders, 44 years after the 19th amendment passed) had nothing at all to do with suffrage (i.e. whether "men" or "people" should vote), but rather with unequal apportionment of electoral power between counties. It seems the Supreme Court was simply adopting a progressive and gender-neutral form of an older phrase.

The current article text simply gives absolutely no evidence that 1M1V and 1P1V are distinct senses on the basis of gender. I'd be surprised to see sources which define them that way. In fact, I'd argue that "everyone's vote should count equally" may be the predominant sense of 1M1V, as opposed to "all men should have the right to vote". RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 16:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems there is an oppose consensus. Then I will put the split parts together. HudecEmil (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I take back my previous claim of oppose consensus, rereading the discussion I don't see a consensus. Hereby, I reopen my splitting proposal. Just to update, there are 27,800 publications for 'One person, one vote' on Google Scholar and 25,000 publications for 'One man, one vote'. With this large number of publications both should have a separate page. HudecEmil (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No editor besides you in the above discussion supported splitting the article, so I think you were correct the first time to infer a consensus that One person, one vote currently should not live as a separate article.

The fact that sources have used either term is not sufficient. Rather, do we have any source which explains these as two separate topics, rather than slight variations on the same slogan? As an analogy, poliomyelitis and polio both appear frequently in reliable sources, but they mean the same thing, so we only have one article called Polio. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

quote Gender neutrality in English#Generic words for humans:

"Another issue for gender-neutral language concerns the use of the words man, men and mankind to refer to a person or people of unspecified sex or to persons of both sexes.

Although the word man originally referred to both males and females, some feel that it no longer does so unambiguously. In Old English, the word wer referred to males only and wif to females only, while man referred to both, although in practice man was sometimes also used in Old English to refer only to males. In time, wer fell out of use, and man came to refer sometimes to both sexes and sometimes to males only; "[a]s long as most generalizations about men were made by men about men, the ambiguity nestling in this dual usage was either not noticed or thought not to matter." By the 18th century, man had come to refer primarily to males; some writers who wished to use the term in the older sense deemed it necessary to spell out their meaning. Anthony Trollope, for example, writes of "the infinite simplicity and silliness of mankind and womankind", and when "Edmund Burke, writing of the French Revolution, used men in the old, inclusive way, he took pains to spell out his meaning: 'Such a deplorable havoc is made in the minds of men (both sexes) in France....'"

Proponents of gender-neutral language argue that seemingly generic uses of the word "man" are often not in fact generic. Miller and Swift illustrate with the following quotation:

As for man, he is no different from the rest. His back aches, he ruptures easily, his women have difficulties in childbirth....

"If man and he were truly generic, the parallel phrase would have been he has difficulties in childbirth", Miller and Swift comment. Writing for the American Philosophical Association, Virginia L. Warren follows Janice Moulton and suggests truly generic uses of the word man would be perceived as "false, funny, or insulting", offering as an example the sentence "Some men are female."

Further, some commentators point out that the ostensibly gender-neutral use of man has in fact sometimes been used to exclude women:

Thomas Jefferson did not make the same distinction in declaring that "all men are created equal" and "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word men in its principal sense of males, and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise.

For reasons like those above, supporters of gender-neutral language argue that linguistic clarity as well as equality would be better served by having man and men refer unambiguously to males, and human(s) or people to all persons; similarly, the word mankind replaced by humankind or humanity.

The use of the word man as a generic word referring to all humans has been declining, particularly among female speakers and writers." HudecEmil (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone supports the split? HudecEmil (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Closed HudecEmil (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

US section

The US section is off-topic. It's about population accuracy, not the OMOV in principle. There's nothing about the adoption of OMOV in the US in the article. --95.24.71.173 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Some would argue that what I'm talking about is in fact universal suffrage, but no, universal suffrage can also be a weighted vote. --95.24.66.72 (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)