In every democratic state, equality of voting rights is taken for granted, in principle, if not always in practice. There is no question that every vote should have the same value, or at least a nearly equal value, regardless of who casts it or where it is cast. In Japan's case, however, there are wide disparities in vote value between urban and rural constituencies. Obviously, this reflects flaws in regional seat distribution, and the Diet will have its work cut out correcting the defects.
In the last Upper House election, in July 1998, voters in Tokyo had 4.98 times less say than those in the sparsely populated prefecture of Tottori. However, the Supreme Court ruled last week that the disparity is within tolerable bounds and therefore constitutional, thus effectively endorsing the election system as it existed at the time.
The ruling was supported by 10 justices, including the chief justice. Five other justices, however, opposed it, saying the partial rezoning of electoral districts in 1994 -- which added four seats in some regions and subtracted four in others -- still left "considerable inequalities" in the value of a vote. They concluded that the election system was unconstitutional.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.