Mill advocates plural voting on instrumentalist grounds: the more competent are to have more votes. At the same time, he regards it as a ‘personal injustice’ to withhold from anyone ‘the ordinary privilege of having his voice reckoned in the disposal of affairs in which he has the same interest as other people’ (Mill 1861a, p. 469). But if electoral voice is justified by its contribution to good governance, why would it be an injustice to deny the vote to those whose use of it would disserve this end? I propose the dual justification view to resolve this tension. Mill holds that electoral voice is to be justified in two complementary ways: both as communicating a person’s interests and perspective in order that they be accommodated in policy deliberations, and as advancing a vision of the common good and influencing the policy of the legislature.

中文翻译：

---

选举声音的正当性是什么？ JS Mill 投票

密尔基于工具主义的理由主张复数投票：能力更强的人拥有更多的选票。与此同时，他认为剥夺任何人“在处理与其他人有相同利益的事务时让自己的声音受到重视的普通特权”是一种“个人不公正”（Mill 1861a，第 469 页） ）。但如果选举的声音因其对善政的贡献而被证明是合理的，那么为什么拒绝那些利用选举声音会损害这一目标的人的投票权是不公正的呢？我提出双重理由观点来解决这种紧张关系。密尔认为，选举的声音应该通过两种互补的方式来证明其合理性：一方面是为了传达个人的利益和观点，以便他们能够参与政策审议；另一方面是为了推进共同利益的愿景并影响立法机构的政策。