Republican political philosophers have long debated whether majoritarian democratic institutions are compatible with the republican ideal of non-domination. While neo-republicans like Pettit look to counter-majoritarian mechanisms and institutions in order to avoid domination by the majority, others have argued that basic political equality (understood as one person one vote) together with some form of social equality (understood as near equal influence and control) will safeguard against domination. What is striking about both sides of this debate, however, is the fact that the basic premise that all democratic decisions should always be based on the equal votes of all members of a community (whether that is a firm, a political party, or a parliament) is never questioned.

In this paper, I will look at the often-neglected idea that at least for some democratic decisions the degree of affectedness should determine the weight (or the amount) of a person’s vote(s) and show that it actually fits very well with the worry of arbitrary interference that republicans have. This raises the question of whether republican non-domination requires an affectedness-sensitive democratic system.