 He does not say that this is a route to producing better political decisions, but it is hard to understand his argument, based on this second motive, in any other way.So, if Aristotle is right that the deliberation is best if participants are numerous (and assuming for simplicity that the voters are the deliberators) then this is a reason for giving all or many citizens a vote, but this does not yet show that the wiser subset should not have, say, two or three; in that way something would be given both to the value of the diverse perspectives, and to the value of the greater wisdom of the few.This combination of the Platonic and Aristotelian points is part of what I think is so formidable about Mill's proposal of plural voting.