W e celebrate the principle of one person, one vote. Even though we have learned in recent years that counting ballots is not as straightforward as we might have thought, procedural equality remains an important standard in modern democracies. On election day, we expect all votes to count equally. Of course, we are not interested only in whether our votes count. We care about which parties and candidates win. We also care about what happens afterward, that is, what elected officials actually do once in office. Just because my vote is counted and my preference is heard—and even the fact that my party or candidate won—does not mean that representatives follow my ideal policy position. In fact, citizens in a democracy should rarely expect policy to match their specific policy preferences. This partly reflects institutional features that lead some votes to be weighted more than others—for example, in the United States, the electoral college, gerrymandered house districts, and the structurally malapportioned Senate. However, even where political equality exists and all votes—or voices—count the same, a more fundamental aspect of democracy ensures that policy will not align with many citizens’ preferences. If people’s preferences differ, after all, actual policy simply cannot satisfy everyone. In theory, politicians represent populations, whether districts, cities, states, or countries. Were politicians to give everyone equal weight, they would represent the distribution of the preferences of their constituents. It is common in the social sciences to theorize that, if all voters count