Talk:One man, one vote

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political Emancipation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Much better now. 216.199.161.66 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of phrase 

message: 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)
replies: text: Might be time to move it to "one person, one vote".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - would make more sense to host the article at one person, one vote Superb Owl (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: 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."http://www.fairvote.org/?page=39&articlemode=showspecific&showarticle=2335
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  OMOV as an argument against voting systems other than plurality 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Lead does not reflect article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other Uses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title: Developing countries - Successful examples

message: :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)
replies: text: One man, 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)

text: Fine with me. — Andy Anderson 03:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 May 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  US section