[ahD5zae7]

> All of those in theory are based on "one man one vote", so if you concentrate ownership of supply you drastically reduce the number of votes it gets.

Well let's not forget lobbying, corruption (more important than lobbying in some parts of the world, e.g. my country) and the plain and simple fact that politicians are usually quite rich (in many countries, not all) and so will own and rent houses, while having great influence on local laws.

[neilparikh]

Lobbying and corruption are problems, but do we really think they're harder problems than convincing the landowning majority to support policies that will make the value of their asset go down? I don't think so.

[bovine3dom]

That's why I added the "in theory" caveat : )

I still think a shift would matter. There is some evidence for this in the UK because homeowners generally vote Conservative, but people are becoming homeowners later in life and less often. So the Conservatives are running around terrified that they're going to lose voters in the long term.

They have introduced quite a few inflationary policies subsidising the first purchases young fairly wealthy people.

I think also the way they have pivoted more recently to focus on the "culture wars" and (English) nationalism is a way to encourage older renters to vote for them.